The present invention generally relates to medical robotic systems and in particular, to a medical robotic system providing coupled control modes.
Minimally invasive surgery is known under various names (e.g., endoscopy, laparoscopy, arthroscopy, endovascular, keyhole, etc.), often specific to the anatomical area in which work is done. Such surgery includes the use of both hand-held and teleoperated/telemanipulated/telepresence (robot assisted/telerobotics) equipment, such as the da Vinci® Surgical System made by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California. Both diagnostic (e.g., biopsy) and therapeutic procedures (“medical procedures”) are done. Instruments may be inserted into a patient percutaneously via surgical incision or via natural orifice. A new, experimental minimally invasive surgery variation is Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES), in which instruments enter via a natural orifice (e.g., mouth, nostril, ear canal, anus, vagina, urethra) and continue to a surgical site via a transluminal incision (e.g., in a gastric or colonic wall) within the body. Although teleoperative surgery using the da Vinci® Surgical System provides great benefits over, for instance, many hand-held procedures, for some patients and for some anatomical areas the da Vinci® Surgical System may be unable to effectively access a surgical site. In addition, further reducing the size and number of incisions generally aids patient recovery and helps reduce patient trauma and discomfort.
Various slave manipulators are provided in such medical robotic systems to perform useful functions, such as manipulating instruments to perform medical procedures on a patient, positioning and orienting imaging systems such as endoscopic imaging devices to capture images of the instruments' working ends and delivering the working ends of the instruments and an image capturing end of the imaging system to a work site in the patient. The delivery of the working and image capturing ends of the instruments and imaging system (“medical devices”) uses one or more guide tubes and structures that hold and manipulate the guide tube(s). In addition, master manipulators are used as input devices to track the motion of their operator's hands and to provide appropriate haptic feedback to the operator indicative of the state of their associated slave manipulators. Depending on their respective function, the slave and master manipulators (“robotic manipulators”) may be designed with different workspaces and dexterities.
In general, the reachable workspace of a medical device that is being manipulated by a slave manipulator is the set of points and orientations in space that its distal tip (e.g., working or image capturing end) can reach. On the other hand, the dexterous workspace of the medical device's distal tip generally identifies the set of points in space that can be reached by primarily changing its orientation (e.g., changing the position of a wrist joint that orients the distal tip). As explanation, dexterity is a measure of the capability of a robotic manipulator to control the position (in a limited manner) and orientation of the working end of its associated medical device. Further, it relates the joint degrees of freedom (i.e. the number of independently actuated joints in a kinematic chain of the robotic manipulator/medical device) and the Cartesian/output degrees of freedom that describe the independent rigid body positions and orientations of the distal tip. While the number of output (slave manipulator) degrees of freedom (DOF) is often at most six, the number of input (master manipulator) joint DOFs varies greatly depending on the master manipulator design.
As may be readily appreciated, the dexterous workspace is generally a subset of the reachable workspace. To enable the surgeon to finely control working ends of the instruments, instrument slave manipulators are generally designed to optimize their dexterity, even at the expense of sacrificing their overall reachable workspace. To compensate for such limitation, a base manipulator (such as a patient side cart) with a large reachable workspace may be used to deliver the instrument and imaging system slave manipulators near the entry apertures (e.g., minimally invasive incisions or natural orifices) in the patient body. Further, when the instruments and imaging system are disposed within a common guide tube, the guide tube serves as a secondary base since movement of the guide tube in this case effectively moves all of the instruments and the imaging system disposed therein. The instrument and imaging system slave manipulators may then finally deliver the working and image capturing ends of their respective medical devices to the work site (e.g., target anatomy) in the patient.
The overall capability of a medical robotic system is achieved by a balance between the workspace and dexterity of all the robotic manipulators that constitute it. However, the differences in the individual capabilities of each manipulator have to be clear and well understood by the user in order to effectively utilize the system. It is in general difficult for the user to select which manipulator to control from the console and how to move it in order to achieve a desired “working configuration” of their respective medical devices inside the patient, with the instruments' working ends having the best possible dexterity and reach, while the capturing end of the imaging system is positioned in such a way to provide good visualization of the medical procedure being performed at the work site without interfering with the instruments' movements. Hence, it is desirable to provide the system with the capability of performing secondary or coupled control movements, e.g., for the camera manipulator and the base manipulator (guide tube manipulator and/or manipulator for moving the setup arms and or support for the patient side support system), so as not to distract the user from performing the medical procedure at the time using the surgical instruments.
The number of degrees of freedom (DOFs) is the number of independent variables that uniquely identify the pose/configuration of a system. Since robotic manipulators are kinematic chains that map the (input) joint space into the (output) Cartesian space, the notion of DOF can be expressed in any of these two spaces. In particular, the set of joint DOFs is the set of joint variables for all the independently controlled joints. Without loss of generality, joints are mechanisms that provide a single translational (prismatic joints) or rotational (revolute joints) DOF. Any mechanism that provides more than one DOF motion is considered, from a kinematic modeling perspective, as two or more separate joints. The set of Cartesian DOFs is usually represented by the three translational (position) variables (e.g., surge, heave, sway) and by the three rotational (orientation) variables (e.g. Euler angles or roll/pitch/yaw angles) that describe the position and orientation of an end effector (or tip) frame with respect to a given reference Cartesian frame.
For example, a planar mechanism with an end effector mounted on two independent and perpendicular rails has the capability of controlling the x/y position within the area spanned by the two rails (prismatic DOFs). If the end effector can be rotated around an axis perpendicular to the plane of the rails, then there are then three input DOFs (the two rail positions and the yaw angle) that correspond to three output DOFs (the x/y position and the orientation angle of the end effector).
Although the number of Cartesian DOFs is at most six, a condition in which all the translational and orientational variables are independently controlled, the number of joint DOFs is generally the result of design choices that involve considerations of the complexity of the mechanism and the task specifications. Accordingly, the number of joint DOFs can be more than, equal to, or less than six. For non-redundant kinematic chains, the number of independently controlled joints is equal to the degree of mobility for the end effector frame. For a certain number of prismatic and revolute joint DOFs, the end effector frame will have an equal number of DOFs (except when in singular configurations) in Cartesian space that will correspond to a combination of translational (x/y/z position) and rotational (roll/pitch/yaw orientation angle) motions.
The distinction between the input and the output DOFs is extremely important in situations with redundant or “defective” kinematic chains (e.g., mechanical manipulators). In particular, “defective” manipulators have fewer than six independently controlled joints and therefore do not have the capability of fully controlling end effector position and orientation. Instead, defective manipulators are limited to controlling only a subset of the position and orientation variables. On the other hand, redundant manipulators have more than six joint DOFs. Thus, a redundant manipulator can use more than one joint configuration to establish a desired 6-DOF end effector pose. In other words, additional degrees of freedom can be used to control not just the end effector position and orientation but also the “shape” of the manipulator itself. In addition to the kinematic degrees of freedom, mechanisms may have other DOFs, such as the pivoting lever movement of gripping jaws or scissors blades.
It is also important to consider reference frames for the space in which DOFs are specified. For example, a single DOF change in joint space (e.g., the joint between two links rotates) may result in a motion that combines changes in the Cartesian translational and orientational variables of the frame attached to the distal tip of one of the links (the frame at the distal tip both rotates and translates through space). Kinematics describes the process of converting from one measurement space to another. For example, using joint space measurements to determine the Cartesian space position and orientation of a reference frame at the tip of a kinematic chain is “forward” kinematics. Using Cartesian space position and orientation for the reference frame at the tip of a kinematic chain to determine the required joint positions is “inverse” kinematics. If there are any revolute joints, kinematics involves non-linear (trigonometric) functions.
An object of aspects of the invention is to provide coupled control modes in which one or more devices may be directly controlled to achieve a primary objective and one or more other devices may be indirectly controlled to achieve secondary objectives.
The embodiments of the invention are summarized by the claims that follow below.
This description and the accompanying drawings that illustrate aspects and embodiments of the present invention should not be taken as limiting—the claims define the protected invention. Various mechanical, compositional, structural, electrical, and operational changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of this description and the claims. In some instances, well-known circuits, structures, and techniques have not been shown in detail in order not to obscure the invention. Like numbers in two or more figures represent the same or similar elements.
Further, this description's terminology is not intended to limit the invention. For example, spatially relative terms-such as “beneath”, “below”, “lower”, “above”, “upper”, “proximal”, “distal”, and the like—may be used to describe one element's or feature's relationship to another element or feature as illustrated in the figures. These spatially relative terms are intended to encompass different positions and orientations of the device in use or operation in addition to the position and orientation shown in the figures. For example, if the device in the figures is turned over, elements described as “below” or “beneath” other elements or features would then be “above” or “over” the other elements or features. Thus, the exemplary term “below” can encompass both positions and orientations of above and below. The device may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations), and the spatially relative descriptors used herein interpreted accordingly. Likewise, descriptions of movement along and around various axes includes various special device positions and orientations. In addition, the singular forms “a”, “an”, and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context indicates otherwise. And the terms “comprises”, “comprising”, “includes”, and the like specify the presence of stated features, steps, operations, elements, and/or components but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups. Components described as coupled may be electrically or mechanically directly coupled, or they may be indirectly coupled via one or more intermediate components.
Telemanipulation and like terms generally refer to an operator manipulating a master device (e.g., an input kinematic chain) in a relatively natural way (e.g., a natural hand or finger movement), whereupon the master device movements are made into commands that are processed and transmitted in real time to a slave device (e.g., an output kinematic chain) that reacts nearly instantaneously to the commands and to environmental forces. Telemanipulation is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,574,355 (Green), which is incorporated by reference.
To avoid repetition in the figures and the descriptions below of the various aspects and illustrative embodiments, it should be understood that many features are common to many aspects and embodiments. Omission of an aspect from a description or figure does not imply that the aspect is missing from embodiments that incorporate that aspect. Instead, the aspect may have been omitted for clarity and to avoid prolix description.
Accordingly, several general aspects apply to various descriptions below. For example, at least one surgical end effector is shown or described in various figures. An end effector is the part of the minimally invasive surgical instrument or assembly that performs a specific surgical function (e.g., forceps/graspers, needle drivers, scissors, electrocautery hooks, staplers, clip appliers/removers, etc.). Many end effectors have a single DOF (e.g., graspers that open and close). The end effector may be coupled to the surgical instrument body with a mechanism that provides one or more additional DOFs, such as “wrist” type mechanisms. Examples of such mechanisms are shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,371,952 (Madhani et al.) and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,817,974 (Cooper et al.), both of which are incorporated by reference, and may be known as various Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Endowrist® mechanisms as used on both 8 mm and 5 mm instruments for the da Vinci® Surgical System. Although the surgical instruments described herein generally include end effectors, it should be understood that in some aspects an end effector may be omitted. For example, the distal tip of an instrument body shaft may be used to retract tissue. As another example, suction or irrigation openings may exist at the distal tip of a body shaft or the wrist mechanism. In these aspects, it should be understood that descriptions of positioning and orienting an end effector include positioning and orienting the tip of a surgical instrument that does not have an end effector. For example, a description that addresses the reference frame for a tip of an end effector should also be read to include the reference frame of the tip of a surgical instrument that does not have an end effector.
Throughout this description, it should be understood that a mono- or stereoscopic imaging system/image capture component/camera device may be placed at the distal end of an instrument wherever an end effector is shown or described (the device may be considered a “camera instrument”), or it may be placed near or at the distal end of any guide tube or other instrument assembly element. Accordingly, the terms “imaging system” and the like as used herein should be broadly construed to include both image capture components and combinations of image capture components with associated circuitry and hardware, within the context of the aspects and embodiments being described. Such endoscopic imaging systems (e.g., optical, infrared, ultrasound, etc.) include systems with distally positioned image sensing chips and associated circuits that relay captured image data via a wired or wireless connection to outside the body. Such endoscopic imaging systems also include systems that relay images for capture outside the body (e.g., by using rod lenses or fiber optics). In some instruments or instrument assemblies a direct view optical system (the endoscopic image is viewed directly at an eyepiece) may be used. An example of a distally positioned semiconductor stereoscopic imaging system is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/614,661 “Stereoscopic Endoscope” (Shafer et al.), which is incorporated by reference. Well-known endoscopic imaging system components, such as electrical and fiber optic illumination connections, are omitted or symbolically represented for clarity. Illumination for endoscopic imaging is typically represented in the drawings by a single illumination port. It should be understood that these depictions are exemplary. The sizes, positions, and numbers of illumination ports may vary. Illumination ports are typically arranged on multiple sides of the imaging apertures, or completely surrounding the imaging apertures, to minimize deep shadows.
In this description, cannulas are typically used to prevent a surgical instrument or guide tube from rubbing on patient tissue. Cannulas may be used for both incisions and natural orifices. For situations in which an instrument or guide tube does not frequently translate or rotate relative to its insertion (longitudinal) axis, a cannula may not be used. For situations that require insufflation, the cannula may include a seal to prevent excess insufflation gas leakage past the instrument or guide tube. For example, for thoracic surgery that does not require insufflation, the cannula seal may be omitted, and if instruments or guide tube insertion axis movement is minimal, then the cannula itself may be omitted. A rigid guide tube may function as a cannula in some configurations for instruments that are inserted relative to the guide tube. Cannulas and guide tubes may be, e.g., steel or extruded plastic. Plastic, which is less expensive than steel, may be suitable for one-time use.
Various instances and assemblies of flexible surgical instruments and guide tubes are contemplated as applicable with the present invention. Such flexibility, in this description, is achieved in various ways. For example, a segment or an instrument or guide tube may be a continuously curving flexible structure, such as one based on a helical wound coil or on tubes with various segments removed (e.g., kerf-type cuts). Or the flexible part may be made of a series of short, pivotally connected segments (“vertebrae”) that provide a snake-like approximation of a continuously curving structure. Instrument and guide tube structures may include those in U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2004/0138700 (Cooper et al.), which is incorporated by reference. For clarity, the figures and associated descriptions generally show only two segments of instruments and guide tubes, termed proximal (closer to the transmission mechanism: farther from the surgical site) and distal (farther from the transmission mechanism; closer to the surgical site). It should be understood that the instruments and guide tubes may be divided into three or more segments, each segment being rigid, passively flexible, or actively flexible. Flexing and bending as described for a distal segment, a proximal segment, or an entire mechanism also apply to intermediate segments that have been omitted for clarity. For instance, an intermediate segment between proximal and distal segments may bend in a simple or compound curve. Flexible segments may be various lengths. Segments with a smaller outside diameter may have a smaller minimum radius of curvature while bending than segments with a larger outside diameter. For cable-controlled systems, unacceptably high cable friction or binding limits minimum radius of curvature and the total bend angle while bending. The guide tube's (or any joint's) minimum bend radius is such that it does not kink or otherwise inhibit the smooth motion of the inner surgical instrument's mechanism. Flexible components may be, for example, up to approximately four feet in length and approximately 0.6 inches in diameter. Other lengths and diameters (e.g., shorter, smaller) and the degree of flexibility for a specific mechanism may be determined by the target anatomy for which the mechanism has been designed.
In some instances only a distal segment of an instrument or guide tube is flexible, and the proximal segment is rigid. In other instances, the entire segment of the instrument or guide tube that is inside the patient is flexible. In still other instances, an extreme distal segment may be rigid, and one or more other proximal segments are flexible. The flexible segments may be passive, or they may be actively controllable (“steerable”). Such active control may be done using, for example, sets of opposing cables (e.g., one set controlling “pitch” and an orthogonal set controlling “yaw”; three cables can be used to perform similar action). Other control elements such as small electric or magnetic actuators, shape memory alloys, electroactive polymers (“artificial muscle”), pneumatic or hydraulic bellows or pistons, and the like may be used. In instances in which a segment of an instrument or guide tube is fully or partially inside another guide tube, various combinations of passive and active flexibility may exist. For instance, an actively flexible instrument inside a passively flexible guide tube may exert sufficient lateral force to flex the surrounding guide tube. Similarly, an actively flexible guide tube may flex a passively flexible instrument inside it. Actively flexible segments of guide tubes and instruments may work in concert. For both flexible and rigid instruments and guide tubes, control cables placed farther from the center longitudinal axis may provide a mechanical advantage over cables placed nearer to the center longitudinal axis, depending on compliance considerations in the various designs.
The flexible segment's compliance (stiffness) may vary from being almost completely flaccid (small internal frictions exist) to being substantially rigid. In some aspects, the compliance is controllable. For example, a segment or all of a flexible segment of an instrument or guide tube can be made substantially (i.e., effectively but not infinitely) rigid (the segment is “rigidizable” or “lockable”). The lockable segment may be locked in a straight, simple curve or in a compound curve shape. Locking may be accomplished by applying tension to one or more cables that run longitudinally along the instrument or guide tube that is sufficient to cause friction to prevent adjacent vertebrae from moving. The cable or cables may run through a large, central hole in each vertebra or may run through smaller holes near the vertebra's outer circumference. Alternatively, the drive element of one or more motors that move one or more control cables may be soft-locked in position (e.g., by servocontrol) to hold the cables in position and thereby prevent instrument or guide tube movement, thus locking the vertebrae in place. Keeping a motor drive element in place may be done to effectively keep other movable instrument and guide tube components in place as well. It should be understood that the stiffness under servocontrol, although effective, is generally less than the stiffness that may be obtained with braking placed directly on joints, such as the braking used to keep passive setup joints in place. Cable stiffness generally dominates because it is generally less than servosystem or braked joint stiffness.
In some situations, the compliance of the flexible segment may be continuously varied between flaccid and rigid states. For example, locking cable tension can be increased to increase stiffness but without locking the flexible segment in a rigid state. Such intermediate compliance may allow for telesurgical operation while reducing tissue trauma that may occur due to movements caused by reactive forces from the surgical site. Suitable bend sensors incorporated into the flexible segment allow the telesurgical system to determine instrument and/or guide tube position as it bends. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0013523 (Childers et al.), which is incorporated by reference, discloses a fiber optic position shape sensing device and method. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/491,384 (Larkin et al.), which is incorporated by reference, discloses fiber optic bend sensors (e.g., fiber Bragg gratings) used in the control of such segments and flexible devices.
A surgeon's inputs to control aspects of the minimally invasive surgical instrument assemblies, instruments, and end effectors as described herein are generally done using an intuitive, camera referenced control interface. For example, the da Vinci® Surgical System includes a Surgeon's console with such a control interface, which may be modified to control aspects described herein. The surgeon manipulates one or more master manual input mechanisms having, e.g., 6 DOFs to control the slave instrument assembly and instrument. The input mechanisms include a finger-operated grasper to control one or more end effector DOFs (e.g., closing grasping jaws). Intuitive control is provided by orienting the relative positions of the end effectors and the endoscopic imaging system with the positions of the surgeon's input mechanisms and image output display. This orientation allows the surgeon to manipulate the input mechanisms and end effector controls as if viewing the surgical work site in substantially true presence. This teleoperation true presence means that the surgeon views an image from a perspective that appears to be that of an operator directly viewing and working at the surgical site. U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,581 (Niemeyer et al.), which is incorporated by reference, contains further information on camera referenced control in a minimally invasive surgical apparatus.
As shown in
Referring back to
These illustrative robotic arm assemblies are used, for example, for instrument assemblies that include a rigid guide tube and are operated to move with reference to a remote center. Certain setup and active joints in the manipulator arm may be omitted if motion around a remote center is not required. It should be understood that manipulator arms may include various combinations of links, passive, and active joints (redundant DOFs may be provided) to achieve a necessary range of poses for surgery.
Referring again to
As an example of an instrument assembly,
Surgical instruments 1602a and 1602b function in a like manner, and many instrument functions (body roll, wrist operation, end effector operation, etc.) are similar to the surgical instruments used in the da Vinci® Surgical System (both 8 mm and 5 mm instrument body diameters). In other aspects the instruments may function differently and/or have capabilities not embodied in da Vinci® Surgical System instruments (e.g., one instrument may be straight, one instrument may be jointed, one instrument may be flexible, etc.). In the present example, instrument 1602a includes a transmission portion (not shown) at its proximal end, an elongated instrument body 1614, one of various surgical end effectors 1616, and a snake-like, two degree of freedom wrist mechanism 1618 that couples end effector 1616 to instrument body 1614. As in the da Vinci® Surgical Systems, in some aspects the transmission portion includes disks that interface with electrical actuators (e.g., servomotors) permanently mounted on a support arm so that instruments may easily be changed. Other linkages such as matching gimbal plates and levers may be used to transfer actuating forces at the mechanical interface. Mechanical mechanisms (e.g., gears, levers, gimbals) in the transmission portion transfer the actuating forces from the disks to cables, wires, and/or cable, wire, and hypotube combinations that run through one or more channels in instrument body 1614 (which may include one or more articulated segments) to control wrist 1618 and end effector 1616 movement. In some aspects, one or more disks and associated mechanisms transfer actuating forces that roll instrument body 1614 around its longitudinal axis 1619 as shown. In some aspects the actuators for a particular instrument are themselves mounted on a single linear actuator that moves instrument body 1614 longitudinally as shown within channel 1604a. The main segment of instrument body 1614 is a substantially rigid single tube, although in some aspects it may be slightly resiliently flexible. This small flexibility allows a proximal body segment 1620 proximal of guide tube 1606 (i.e., outside the patient) be slightly flexed so that several instrument bodies can be spaced more closely within guide tube 1606 than their individual transmission segment housings would otherwise allow, like several cut flowers of equal length being placed in a small-necked vase. This flexing is minimal (e.g., less than or equal to about a 5-degree bend angle in one embodiment) and does not induce significant friction because the bend angle for the control cables and hypotubes inside the instrument body is small.
Instruments 1602a and 1602b each include a proximal body segment that extends through the guide tube and at least one distal body segment that is positioned beyond the guide tube's distal end. For example, instrument 1602a includes proximal body segment 1620 that extends through guide tube 1606, a distal body segment 1622 that is coupled to proximal body segment 1620 at a joint 1624, a wrist mechanism 1626 that is coupled to distal body segment 1622 at another joint 1628 (the coupling may include another, short distal body segment), and an end effector 1630. In some aspects the distal body segment 1622 and joints 1624 and 1628 function as a parallel motion mechanism 1632 in which the position of a reference frame at the distal end of the mechanism may be changed with respect to a reference frame at the proximal end of the mechanism without changing the orientation of the distal reference frame.
In one aspect, imaging system 1704 is mechanically similar to surgical instruments 1602 as described above. Summarizing these aspects as shown in
Also shown is an auxiliary channel 1760, through which, e.g., irrigation, suction, or other surgical items may be introduced or withdrawn. In some aspects, one or more small, steerable devices may be inserted via auxiliary channel 1760 to spray a cleaning fluid (e.g., pressurized water, gas) and/or a drying agent (e.g., pressurized air or insufflation gas) on the imaging system's windows to clean them. In another aspect, such a cleaning wand may be a passive device that attaches to the camera before insertion. In yet another aspect, the end of the wand is automatically booked to the image capture component as the image capture component emerges from the guide tube's distal end. A spring gently pulls on the cleaning wand so that it tends to retract into the guide tube as the imaging system is withdrawn from the guide tube.
As shown in
In some instances one or more DOFs may be manually actuated. For instance, surgical instrument 2306 may be a passively flexible laparoscopic instrument with a hand-actuated end effector grip DOF, and guide tube 2308 may be actively steerable to provide wrist motion as described above. In this example, the surgeon servocontrols the guide tube DOFs and an assistant hand controls the instrument grip DOF.
In addition to the actuators that control the instrument and/or guide tube elements, each actuator assembly may also include an actuator component (e.g., motor-driven cable, lead screw, pinion gear, etc.; linear motor; and the like) that provides motion along instrument assembly 2302's longitudinal axis (surge). As shown in the
Control signals from control system 2320 control the various servomotor actuators in actuator assembly 2304. The control signals are, e.g., associated with the surgeon's master inputs at input/output system 2322 to move instrument assembly 2302's mechanical slave components. In turn, various feedback signals from sensors in actuator assembly 2304, and/or instrument assembly 2302, and/or other components are passed to control system 2320. Such feedback signals may be pose information, as indicated by servomotor position or other position, orientation, and force information, such as may be obtained with the use of fiber Bragg grating-based sensors. Feedback signals may also include force sensing information, such as tissue reactive forces, to be, e.g., visually or haptically output to the surgeon at input/output system 2322.
Image data from an endoscopic imaging system associated with instrument assembly 2302 are passed to image processing system 2324. Such image data may include, e.g., stereoscopic image data to be processed and output to the surgeon via input/output system 2322 as shown. Image processing may also be used to determine instrument position, which is input to the control system as a form of distal position feedback sensor. In addition, an optional sensing system 2326 positioned outside and near the patient may sense position or other data associated with instrument assembly 2302. Sensing system 2326 may be static or may be controlled by control system 2320 (the actuators are not shown and may be similar to those depicted or to known mechanical servo components), and it may include one or more actual sensors positioned near the patient. Position information (e.g., from one or more wireless transmitters, RFID chips, etc.) and other data from sensing system 2326 may be routed to control system 2320. If such position information or other data is to be visually output to the surgeon, control system 2320 passes it in either raw or processed form to image processing system 2324 for integration with the surgeon's output display at input/output system 2322. Further, any image data, such as fluoroscopic or other real-time imaging (ultrasound, X-ray, MRI, and the like), from sensing system 2326 are sent to image processing system 2324 for integration with the surgeon's display. And real-time images from sensing system 2326 may be integrated with preoperative images accessed by image processing system 2324 for integration with the surgeon's display. In this way, for instance, preoperative images of certain tissue (e.g., brain tissue structures) are received from a data storage location 2328, may be enhanced for better visibility, the preoperative images are registered with other tissue landmarks in real time images, and the combined preoperative and real time images are used along with position information from instrument and actuator assemblies 2302, 2304 and/or sensing system 2326 to present an output display that assists the surgeon to maneuver instrument assembly 2302 towards a surgical site without damaging intermediate tissue structures.
In many aspects the devices described herein are used as single-port devices-all components necessary to complete a surgical procedure enter the body via a single entry port. In some aspects, however, multiple devices and ports may be used.
In one aspect, field of view boundaries can be determined when the camera is manufactured so that the boundaries are known in relation to the camera head (image capture component). The boundary information is then stored in a nonvolatile memory associated with the imaging system that incorporates the camera head. Consequently, the control system can use the imaging system instrument's kinematic and joint position information to locate the camera head relative to the working instruments, and therefore the control system can determine the field of view boundaries relative to the working instruments. Instruments are then controlled to work within the boundaries.
In another aspect for stereoscopic imaging systems, field of view boundaries can be determined relative to the instruments by using machine vision algorithms to identify the instruments and their positions in the field of view. This “tool tracking” subject is disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0258938 A1 (Hoffman et al.), which is incorporated by reference.
As shown in
Next, imaging system 2920 is inserted as shown in
Another way to prevent unwanted instrument/tissue collision is by using image mosaicking.
As depicted, retraction instrument 3108 includes a proximal instrument body 3110 and four serial links 3112a-d. Four joints 3114a-d couple proximal instrument body 3110 and links 3112a-d together. In one aspect, each joint 3114a-d is an independently controllable single DOF pitch joint. In other aspects the joints may have additional DOFs. An actively controlled (either hand or telemanipulated) gripper 3116 is mounted at the distal end of the most distal link 3112d via a passive roll joint 3118. In some aspects other end effectors, or none, may be substituted for the gripper. In one aspect the combined length of links 3112a-d and gripper 3116 is sufficient to retract tissue beyond the working envelope of instruments that extend through channels 3106a and 3106b. For example, the combined lengths of the links and the gripper may be approximately equal to the full insertion range (e.g., approximately 5 inches) of the instruments. Four links and joints are shown, and other numbers of links and joints may be used. Retraction is done using various combinations of pitching joints 3114a-d and rolling instrument 3108 within channel 3106c.
For performing a retraction, instrument 3108 is inserted so that each joint 3114a d is exposed one after the other. Insertion depth may be varied so that retraction can begin at various distances from the distal end of the guide tube with various numbers of joints as the joints exit from the guide tube's distal end. That is, for example, retraction may begin as soon as joint 3114d is inserted past the distal end of the guide tube. For retraction, gripper 3116 may grip tissue. Passive roll joint 3118 prevents the gripped tissue from being torqued as instrument 3108 is rolled within channel 3106c. In one aspect, the control system couples the motions of instrument 3108 and guide tube 3102. This coupled control of motion allows tissue to be held in place by gripper 3116 as the guide tube is moved to the left or right “underneath” the retracted tissue. For example, as the distal end of guide tube 3102 is moved to the left, instrument 3108 is rolled (and joint 3114a-d pitch may be changed) to move gripper 3116 to the right.
Each of the devices 2231, 2241, 2251, 2261, 2271 is manipulated by its own manipulator. In particular, the imaging system 2261 is manipulated by an imaging system manipulator (PSM4) 2262, the first surgical tool 2231 is manipulated by a first tool manipulator (PSM1) 2232, the second surgical tool 2241 is manipulated by a second tool manipulator (PSM2) 2242, the third surgical tool 2251 is manipulated by a third tool manipulator (PSM3) 2252, and the guide tube 2271 is manipulated by a guide tube manipulator 2272.
Each of the instrument manipulators 2232, 2242, 2252, 2262 is a mechanical assembly that carries actuators and provides a mechanical, sterile interface to transmit motion to its respective articulated instrument. Each instrument 2231, 2241, 2251, 2261 is a mechanical assembly that receives the motion from its manipulator and, by means of a cable transmission, propagates the motion to its distal articulations (e.g., joints). Such joints may be prismatic (e.g., linear motion) or rotational (e.g., they pivot about a mechanical axis). Furthermore, the instrument may have internal mechanical constraints (e.g., cables, gearing, cams, belts, etc.) that force multiple joints to move together in a pre-determined fashion. Each set of mechanically constrained joints implements a specific axis of motion, and constraints may be devised to pair rotational joints (e.g., joggle joints). Note also that in this way the instrument may have more joints than the available actuators.
In direct control mode, each of the input devices 203, 204 may be selectively associated with one of the devices 2261, 2231, 2241, 2251, 2271 through a multiplexer (MUX) 2290 so that the associated device may be controlled by the input device through its controller and manipulator. For example, the Surgeon may specify the association through a graphical user interface (GUI) 2291 on the surgeon's console 2102 for the left and right input devices 203, 204 to be respectively associated with the first and second surgical tools 2231, 2241, which are telerobotically controlled through their respective controllers 2233, 2243 and manipulators 2232, 2242 so that the Surgeon may perform a medical procedure on the Patient while the surgical tool 2251, imaging system 2261 and guide tube 2271 are each soft locked in place through their respective controllers (such as shown in
As alternatives to using the GUI 2291 for providing selection input SEL for the MUX 2290, the selective association of the input devices 203, 204 to devices 2251, 2241, 2231, 2261, 2271 may be performed by the Surgeon using voice commands understood by a voice recognition system, or by the Surgeon depressing a button on one of the input devices 203, 204, or by the Surgeon depressing a foot pedal on the surgeon's console 2102, or by the Surgeon using any other well-known mode switching technique. Although such mode switching is described herein as being performed by the Surgeon, it may alternatively be performed by an Assistant under the direction of the Surgeon.
Each of the controllers 2233, 2243, 2253, 2263, 2273 comprises a master/slave control system.
Both the master and slave manipulators include a number of linkages connected by joints so as to facilitate multiple degrees-of-freedom movement. As the Surgeon moves the master manipulator 203 from one position to another during the course of performing a surgical procedure, sensors associated with the master manipulator joints provide information indicating such command movement in master joint space, and sensors associated with the slave manipulator joints provide information indicating slave manipulator and consequently, tool 2231 movement in slave joint space for feedback purposes.
A master input processing unit 301 receives the information of the master joint positions, which are sampled at the control system processing rate (e.g., 1300 Hz in the present example), from the master joint sensors in the master manipulator 203, and computes joint velocities from the sensed joint positions. A master forward kinematics processing unit 302 receives the master joint positions and velocities from the master input processing unit 301, transforms them from master joint space to corresponding positions and velocities of the master frame (i.e., the frame associated with the master manipulator 203) in Cartesian space relative to the eye reference frame (i.e., the reference frame associated with the position of the surgeon's eyes), using, for example, a Jacobian matrix and eye related information separately determined and provided in block 303.
A scale and offset processing unit 304 receives the Cartesian position and velocity commands from the master forward kinematics processing unit 302, scales the commanded movement according to a scale factor selected to perform the surgical procedure, and takes into account offsets to generate desired slave tool frame (i.e., the frame associated with the fool 2231) positions and velocities. For economy of words, Cartesian position is to be interpreted to include Cartesian orientation in this specification where appropriate, Cartesian velocity is to be interpreted to include translational and angular velocities where appropriate. The scale adjustment is useful where small movements of the slave manipulator 2232 are desired relative to larger movement of the master manipulator 203 in order to allow more precise movement of the slave tool 2231 at the surgical site. The offsets, on the other hand, determine, for example, the corresponding position and/or orientation of an end effector frame (e.g., the frame associated with an end effector of the tool 2231) in the camera reference frame (i.e., the frame associated with the image capturing end of the imaging system) relative to a position and orientation of the master frame in the eye reference frame.
A simulated slave processing unit 308 (also referred to as a “simulated domain”) receives desired slave tool frame position and velocity commands from the scale and offset processing unit 304, and limits the desired slave tool frame position, orientation and velocities, to assigned Cartesian limits for instance to enforce correct and intuitive operation of the tool 2231 by keeping it within its dexterous workspace and to prevent motions that would result in excessive forces being exerted by the end effector of the tool 2231. The simulated slave processing unit 308 generates simulated slave joint positions and velocities corresponding to the limited slave tool frame positions and velocities, while making sure that the generated slave joint positions and velocities do not exceed the actual slave joint's range of motion and maximum velocities (i.e., joint limits) even in the vicinity of kinematic singularities for the slave kinematics.
An inverse scale and offset processing unit 306 receives the simulated joint position and velocity commands from the simulated slave processing unit 308 and performs an inverse function to that of the scale and offset processing unit 304 on them. A Cartesian controller 307 receives as first inputs, the inputs to the scale and offset processing unit 304 and as second inputs, the outputs of the inverse scale and offset processing unit 306. The Cartesian controller 307 then generates an error signal as a difference of the first and second inputs, and a Cartesian force “FCART” from the error signal such as with the following formula:
FCART=K(Δx)+B(Δ{dot over (x)}) (1)
where “K” is a spring constant, “B” is a damping constant, “Δ{dot over (x)}” is the difference between the Cartesian velocity inputs to the Cartesian controller 307 and “Δx” is the difference between the Cartesian position inputs to the Cartesian controller 307. For an orientation error, a corresponding torque in Cartesian space is determined.
A master transpose kinematics processing unit 315 receives the Cartesian force FCART through a summation node 314, and generates a corresponding torque in joint space using, for example, the Jacobian transpose matrix and kinematic relationships associated with the master manipulator 203. A master output processing unit 316 receives the master torque signals from the master transpose kinematics processing unit 315, generates electrical currents corresponding to the master torque signals, and supplies the electrical currents to corresponding master joint motors of the master manipulator 203. As a result, a surgeon operating the master manipulator 203 feels the Cartesian force, FCART, whenever the surgeon is commanding a position or velocity which exceeds system Cartesian or slave joint limits or would result in a kinematic singularity condition for the slave manipulator 2232.
As the master input processing unit 301 is receiving master joint positions from sensors in the master manipulator 203, a slave input processing unit 309 is also receiving slave joint positions from position sensors in the slave manipulator 2232 at the control system processing rate. A joint control unit 320 receives the slave joint positions from the slave input processing unit 309 and the simulated joint position commands provided from the simulated slave processing unit 308 and generates slave torque command signals for the slave joint motors and master torque feedback command signals for the master joint motors.
The slave torque command signals are generated by the joint control unit 320 so as to drive joints of the slave manipulator until feedback errors calculated in the joint control unit 320 zero out. A slave output processing unit 310 receives the slave torque command signals from the joint control unit 320, converts them into appropriate electrical currents, and supplies the electrical currents to the joint motors of the slave manipulator so as to drive the motors accordingly.
The master torque feedback command signals are generated by the joint control unit 320 as a function of the slave joint position and velocity tracking errors so as to reflect forces being exerted against the tool 2231 or its slave manipulator 2232 back to the master manipulator 203 so that they may be felt by the Surgeon. A kinematic mapping unit 311 receives the master torque feedback command signals from the joint control unit 320 and generates the corresponding Cartesian force being exerted against the tip of the tool 2231 relative to the camera frame of the imaging system using the slave kinematic configuration and the previously calculated slave reference frame position information provided in block 312.
A gain 313 adjusts the magnitude of the Cartesian force so as to ensure system stability while providing adequate force sensation to the Surgeon. The gain adjusted Cartesian force is then passed through the summation node 314 and processed along with the Cartesian force provided by the Cartesian controller 307 through the master transpose kinematics processing unit 315 and master output processing 316 as previously described in reference to their processing of the Cartesian force provided by the Cartesian controller 307.
Additional details related to conventional aspects of the master/slave control system 300, such as the various reference frames referred to herein and the calculation of the surgeon eye related information provided in block 303 and the slave reference frame information provided in block 312, which are based upon well-known mathematics, are described, for example, in previously incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,885, “Camera Referenced Control in a Minimally Invasive Surgical Apparatus” where the notion of reference frame is termed “slave fulcrum”.
The joint control unit 320 includes a joint controller for each active joint and gear of the slave manipulator 2232 that is being controlled by the master/slave control system 300. In particular, where the slave manipulator 2232 includes various joints to move the tool 2231 through its operable workspace, each of these joints will have its own controller. To simplify the description herein and in the claims, the term “joint” is to be understood as a connection (translational or revolute) between two links and may include gears (or prismatic joints) as well as any other controllable component coupled to linear drive mechanisms that may be used in controlling robotic arm assemblies.
Direct control modes are control modes in which the user has direct control over a specific slave manipulator. All other slave manipulators (i.e., the ones that are not connected to a master device) are soft-locked (i.e., all their joints are held in place by their respective controllers). As an example, in a single-port system such as described herein, three direct control modes are defined as a direct “tool following” mode in which the two hand-operable input devices are associated with two tool slave manipulators and their respective tools, a direct “imaging system” mode in which one or both of the hand-operable input devices are associated with the imaging system, and a direct “guide tube” mode in which one or both hand-operable input devices are associated with the guide tube. For examples,
As indicated in
Also to simplify the figures, the master/slave control system 300 has been split into master and slave side portions (on opposite sides of the “Scale & Offset” blocks) with the PSM1*Controller 248, PSM2*Controller 247, PSM4*Controller 268, and GT*Controller 288 comprising the slave side components (e.g., control system 300 blocks 308, 320, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313 of
In a coupled control mode, the Surgeon is directly controlling movement of an associated slave manipulator (e.g., one of the manipulators 2232, 2242, 2252, 2262, 2272) while indirectly controlling movement of one or more non-associated slave manipulators, in response to commanded motion of the directly controlled slave manipulator, to achieve a secondary objective. Examples of secondary objective include optimizing device workspaces (i.e., maximizing their ranges of motion), optimizing the imaging system's view of other devices and/or the work site, minimizing the chance of collisions between devices and/or the patient's anatomy, and driving non-associated devices to desired poses. By automatically performing secondary tasks through coupled control modes, the system's usability is enhanced by reducing the Surgeon's need to switch to another direct mode to manually achieve the desired secondary objective. Thus, coupled control modes allow the Surgeon to better focus on performing the medical procedure and to pay less attention to managing the system. As described below, the user interface has three coupled control modes: a mode for the instrument(s), a mode for the imaging system, and a mode for guide tube (i.e. as many modes as the number of manipulators designed to perform different functions within the surgical system).
It is useful to provide haptic cues to the Surgeon to indicate when motion of a coupled manipulator occurs, since the Surgeon otherwise may not be aware of the movement of any device that is being indirectly controlled through a coupled control mode. This is not a problem for directly controlled devices, because the master/slave control system for such directly controlled devices generally provides a haptic feedback path. Therefore, a haptic cue such as a detent may be provided that signals to the Surgeon when a coupled mode becomes engaged.
The GUI 2291 used by the Surgeon to specify the association of inputs devices 203, 204 and devices 2231, 2241, 2251, 2261, 2271 may also be used by the Surgeon to specify various parameters of the coupled control modes. For example, the Surgeon may use the GUI 2291 to select which device manipulators participate in various coupled control modes and to define and/or prioritize the secondary objectives associated with the coupled control modes.
Master inputs 2204 may include the surgeon's arm, wrist, hand, and finger movements on the master control mechanisms. Inputs may also be from other movements (e.g., finger, foot, knee, etc. pressing or moving buttons, levers, switches, etc.) and commands (e.g., voice) that control the position and orientation of a particular component or that control a task-specific operation (e.g., energizing an electrocautery end effector or laser, imaging system operation, and the like).
Sensor inputs 2206 may include position information from, e.g., measured servomotor position or sensed bend information. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/491,384 (Larkin, et al.) entitled “Robotic surgery system including position sensors using fiber Bragg gratings”, incorporated by reference, describes the use of fiber Bragg gratings for position sensing. Such bend sensors may be incorporated into the various instruments and imaging systems described herein to be used when determining position and orientation information for a component (e.g., an end effector tip). Position and orientation information may also be generated by one or more sensors (e.g., fluoroscopy, MRI, ultrasound, and the like) positioned outside of the patient, and which in real time sense changes in position and orientation of components inside the patient.
Optimization inputs 2208 relate to the secondary objectives. They may be high-level commands, or the inputs may include more detailed commands or sensory information. An example of a high level command would be a command to an intelligent controller to optimize a workspace. An example of a more detailed command would be for an imaging system to start or stop optimizing its camera. An example of a sensor input would be a signal that a workspace limit had been reached.
Motion coordinator 2202 outputs command signals to various actuator controllers and actuators (e.g., servomotors) associated with manipulators for the various telesurgical system arms.
As an example, such a motion coordination system may be used to control surgical instrument assembly 1700 (
The double-headed arrows between control and transform processor 2220 and the various optimizer/controllers represents the exchange of Following Data associated with the optimizer/controller's arm. Following Data includes the full Cartesian configuration of the entire arm, including base frame and distal tip frame. Control and transform processor 2220 routes the Following Data received from each optimizer/controller to all the optimizer/controllers so that each optimizer/controller has data about the current Cartesian configuration of all arms in the system. In addition, the optimizer/controller for each arm receives optimization goals that are unique for the arm. Each arm's optimizer/controller then uses the other arm positions as inputs and constraints as it pursues its optimization goals. In one aspect, each optimization controller uses an embedded local optimizer to pursue its optimization goals. The optimization module for each arm's optimizer/controller can be independently turned on or off. For example, the optimization module for only the imaging system and the guide tube may be turned on.
The distributed control architecture provides more flexibility than the centralized architecture, although with the potential for decreased performance. It easier to add in a new arm and to change the overall system configuration if such a distributed control architecture is used rather than if a centralized architecture is used. In this distributed architecture, however, the optimization is local versus the global optimization that can be performed with the centralized architecture, in which a single module is aware of the full system's state.
The coupling blocks and device coupled controllers illustrated in
Referring first to
In 3502, the guide tube coupled controller 3203 uses the received commanded device tip positions to determine a guide tube tip position that optimizes workspaces of the devices coupled to the guide tube while their respective controllers maintain their device tip positions. Since the optimization function requires knowledge of the range of motion limits and kinematics of the devices, as well as the current tip positions of the guide tube and the devices, such range of motion and kinematics information is preferably provided to the guide tube coupled controller 3203 either at system startup or other convenient time in a conventional manner while current tip positions of the devices are provided during operation by the device coupling blocks and coupled controllers as previously described. To determine the desired guide tube tip position, each of the device controllers may provide a desired Cartesian pose for its device so that the guide tube coupled controller solves the kinematics in such a way as to have the guide tube tip positioned so as to allow the device's joints to be configurable as close as possible to its desired pose while not moving its tip from the desired tip position.
Preferably such optimization is performed by minimizing a cost function using ranges of motion of the devices and selected weightings. For example, weight values may be selected so that maximizing the ranges of motions of the instruments 2231, 2241 being directly controlled is more heavily weighted (i.e., having higher priority) than maximizing the range of motion of the imaging system 2261 and any other device whose tip is being held in place (i.e., held or “soft-locked” in position by its controller). In 3503, the determined guide tube tip position is then provided to the guide tube controller 2272 to drive the guide tube 2271 to the determined tip position and to the device controllers 2233, 2243, 2263 so that they may drive their respective devices 2231, 2241, 2261 to articulated joint configurations that optimize their respective workspaces as described in reference to
Referring now to
Referring now to
In 3706, the imaging system coupled controller 3204 then determines desired joint positions for the imaging system 2261 using inverse kinematics of the articulated imaging system 2261 and the current tip position of the guide tube 2271. In 3707, the imaging system coupled controller determines an imaging system tip position corresponding to the modified slave joint positions using forward kinematics of the imaging system 2261 and provides the determined imaging system tip position to the guide tube coupled controller 3203. Note that the imaging system tip position determined in 3707 should be the same as the desired imaging system tip position in 3704 unless joint limits or singularities were encountered in 3707, in which case, they would be different in order to avoid the limits or singularities. The guide tube coupled controller then processes the imaging system tip position along with the instrument tip positions according to the first part of the example as described in reference to
Upon completion of a medical procedure, all medical devices used during the procedure should be retracted back out of the patient. Rather than doing this one at a time using direct control modes, it is advantageous to retract all devices at the same time using coupled control modes. In particular, by retracting one device under direct control, it is desirable that all other devices follow in retraction under coupled control while addressing secondary objectives such as avoiding collisions with each other and/or the patient anatomy during the retraction. In addition, before retracting each device into its guide tube, it is necessary to first place the device in a retraction configuration so that it may be retracted into the guide tube. For example, the retraction instrument 3108 depicted in
Conversely, before performing a medical procedure, all medical devices to be used during the procedure should be inserted into the patient. Rather than doing this one at a time using direct control modes, it is advantageous to insert all devices at the same time using coupled control modes. In particular, by inserting one device under direct control, it is desirable that all other devices follow in insertion under coupled control while addressing secondary objectives such as avoiding collisions with each other and/or the patient anatomy during the insertion. In addition, after the instruments are inserted into the patient and they reach the work site, it is useful to place the instruments into configurations that optimize their workspaces. It is also useful for the working ends of the instruments to be well placed in a field of view of an imaging system. Thus, it is desirable to automatically drive each of the instruments into its optimal configuration after the imaging system reaches a desired viewing point at the work site.
In 3801, the guide tube coupling block 3402 periodically receives conventional time-sampled output from its associated Surgeon manipulated input device(s) that indicates in this case that the guide tube is to be retracted backward (e.g., away from a work site) along its longitudinal axis. In 3802, the coupling block 3402 relays the received retraction commands to the other device coupled controllers so that they in turn, command their respective device manipulators to retract their respective devices in the desired retraction direction from their positions at the time.
In 3803, each of the device controllers (i.e., other than the guide tube controller) determines when the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of its respective device is within a threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube. The threshold distance “TH” may be determined, for example, by taking into account the current rotation angle of the most proximal rotated link, the rate at which the retraction is being commanded by the Surgeon on the input device, and the clearance between the “straightened out” device and the channel through which the device extends through in the guide tube. In particular, the threshold distance “TH” is selected so that each of the devices may be retracted back into the guide tube without striking the ends or sides of its respective channel through which it is disposed.
The distance between the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of device and the distal end of the guide tube may be determined in a conventional manner by determining a first vector that extends from a remote center “RC” (i.e., a pivot point of the guide tube) to the distal end of the guide tube, determining the most proximal rotated link of the device, determining a second vector that extends from the remote center “RC” to the most proximal joint rotating the most proximal rotated link of the device, and determining the distance between the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of a device and the distal end of the guide tube from the difference between the first and second vectors.
In 3804, each of the device controllers (i.e., other than the guide tube controller) drives its device to a retraction configuration (i.e., a joint and link configuration that allows the device to be fully retracted into the guide tube) upon determining that the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of its respective device is within the threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube. The rate that the device is driven to its retraction configuration is determined at least in part by the rate at which the output of the input device is changing in the insertion/retraction commanded direction so that collisions between the device and the guide tube are avoided. In addition, possible collisions with other devices and/or the patient are also to be avoided and taken into account as each of the device controllers drives its device to its retraction configuration. In 3805, once each device is determined by its respective device controller to be in its retraction configuration, the device controller allows its respective device to be retracted into its channel in the guide tube in response to retraction commands issued from the input device(s) associated at the time with the guide tube.
Since the image capturing end of the imaging system is generally positioned closer to the distal end of the guide tube than the instruments so that the working ends of the instruments and the work site are well positioned within the field of view of the imaging system, the most proximal rotated link of the imaging system will generally be the first rotated link of the group of devices extending beyond the distal end of the guide tube to reach the threshold distance “TH” from the distal end when the group of devices is being retracted. As the most proximal rotated link of each of the other devices reaches the threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube, its device controller drives its device to its retraction configuration.
As an alternative to the method described in reference to 3803-3804, rather than waiting until the most proximal rotated link of each device reaches a threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube before the device controller starts driving the device to its retraction configuration, each of the device controllers may start driving its device to the retraction configuration immediately upon receiving a command indicating desired movement in the retraction direction. In this case, each device controller is configured to drive its device to its retraction configuration in a manner that ensures that any rotated link of the device is properly aligned to freely enter the device's channel prior to its entry into the channel while avoiding harm to the patient and collisions with other devices.
While driving the imaging system to its retraction configuration, it is important to keep in mind that the imaging system controller uses the received information of the position of the associated instrument's end effector to command movement of its image capturing end to maintain the end effector in its field of view. Since the operator is viewing the image captured by the image capturing end on a display screen while moving the input device, the operator may become disoriented and/or move the input device in an incorrect manner to properly command retraction of its associated instrument. To compensate for such a non-intuitive experience, the reference frames (i.e. blocks 303 and 312 of
In the event that a device controller subsequently receives an insertion command (i.e., a command to move the device in a direction extending away from the distal end of the guide tube), the device controller may automatically drive the device to a desired operational configuration. The desired operational configuration may be a preferred configuration stored in a memory device associated with one or more processors that implement the various controllers and processes described herein. Alternatively, it may be a previously assumed operational configuration that has been stored the memory device. As an example of this latter case, the device joint positions for the operational configurations of the devices just prior to initiating their retraction towards the guide tube may be stored in the memory device so that if the Surgeon decides to re-insert the devices (or their replacement devices after a tool exchange procedure), their device controllers may automatically drive the devices back to the stored operational configurations.
In some instances a surgical instrument is removable and may be replaced with a different surgical instrument that has a structure similar to instrument but a different end effector so as to perform a different surgical task. Accordingly, a single guide tube may be used for one or more interchangeable surgical instruments. In one instance the end effector of the surgical instrument is removable so that it may be readily exchanged with another. In another instance, a surgical accessory such as a clip or suturing material may be provided to a grasping end effector for delivery to the work site while guide tube remains in the patient. A convenient way of performing such end effector exchange (also referred to herein as a “tool exchange”) or providing such a surgical accessory to a retracted grasping end effector is to use a fenestrated guide tube wherein one or more cut-outs are provided in the guide tube in a part externally extending out of the patient while another part of the guide tube extends internally into the patient through the entry aperture.
In 3901, a retraction command is received from an input device associated with an instrument to be retracted (referred to herein as the “associated instrument”). The retraction command is indicated by movement of the input device in a direction that would result in commanding the associated instrument to be retracted back towards and/or into a distal end of the guide tube. As previously described in reference to
In 3902, a determination is made within each of the coupled controller blocks whether its associated device is to be retracted back along with the associated instrument. In the case of the coupled controller block for the imaging system, the determination is affirmative so that the operator may continuously view the working end of the associated instrument as it is retracted back into the guide tube. In the case of the coupled controller blocks of other devices, the determination takes into account whether their respective instruments would be blocking access to the associated instrument's end effector from an opening in the guide tube through which the tool exchange and providing of a surgical accessory is to take place. If the unretracted instrument would block such access to the associated instrument's end effector through the opening, then the determination for coupled controller block of the blocking instrument would also be affirmative. On the other hand, the determination for coupled controller blocks of non-blocking instruments would be negative.
In 3903, coupled controller blocks making affirmative determinations then relay the received retraction commands to their respective controllers, which in turn, command their respective device manipulators to retract their devices (referred to herein as the “coupled devices”) in the desired retraction direction from their positions at the time.
In 3904, each of the retracting device controllers (for both the associated device and the coupled devices) determines when the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of its respective device is within a threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube in the manner described in reference to 3803 of
In 3905, each of the device controllers then commands its respective device manipulator to drive its device to a retraction configuration (i.e., a joint and link configuration that allows the device to be fully retracted into the guide tube) upon determining that the proximal end of the most proximal rotated link of its respective device is within the threshold distance “TH” from the distal end of the guide tube in the manner described in reference to 3804 of
In 3906, once each device being retracted is determined by its respective device controller to be in its retraction configuration, the device controller allows its respective device to be retracted into its channel in the guide tube in response to retraction commands issued from the input device.
In 3907, once the operator determines that the end effector of the associated instrument is in proper position relative to the opening in the fenestrated guide tube, movement of the input device and consequently, the associated instrument is stopped. The imaging system, however, may continue to move to ensure that the associated instrument's end effector is properly within its field of view. In addition, the blocking instrument continues to move until it no longer blocks the access to the associated instrument's end effector through the opening in the fenestrated guide tube. After access to the associated instrument's end effector is clear from the opening, then an exchange of end effectors may be performed and/or a surgical accessory may be provided to the end effector as the imaging system views the activity with the associated instrument's end effector.
Control during insertion may be accomplished, for example, in a manner similar to telemanipulated endoscope control in the da Vinci® Surgical System—in one aspect the surgeon virtually moves the image with one or both of the masters; she uses the masters to move the image side to side and to pull it towards herself, consequently commanding the imaging system and its associated instrument assembly (e.g., a flexible guide tube) to steer towards a fixed center point on the output display and to advance inside the patient. In one aspect the camera control is designed to give the impression that the masters are fixed to the image so that the image moves in the same direction that the master handles are moved, as in the da Vinci® surgical system. This design causes the masters to be in the correct location to control the instruments when the surgeon exits from camera control, and consequently it avoids the need to clutch (disengage), move, and declutch (engage) the masters back into position prior to beginning or resuming instrument control. In some aspects the master position may be made proportional to the insertion velocity to avoid using a large master workspace. Alternatively, the surgeon may clutch and declutch the masters to use a ratcheting action for insertion. In some aspects, insertion (e.g., past the glottis when entering via the esophagus) may be controlled manually (e.g., by hand operated wheels), and automated insertion (e.g., servomotor driven rollers) is then done when the distal end of the surgical instrument assembly is near the surgical site. Preoperative or real time image data (e.g., MRI, X-ray) of the patient's anatomical structures and spaces available for insertion trajectories may be used to assist insertion.
In 4001, the imaging system controller receives an insertion command from an associated input device. In 4002, the imaging system controller commands the imaging system manipulator to move the imaging system in response to insertion command, while in 4003, the imaging system controller provides the movement command to other device coupled controllers so that they may also command their respective devices to move in response to the imaging system commanded movement. In 4004, the imaging system controller determines whether the image capturing end of the imaging system has reached its desired position. This determination may be performed either automatically based upon programmed criteria or it may be indicated through action taken by the Surgeon such as depressing a button on the input device associated with the imaging system at the time. In 4005, after the imaging system controller has determined that the image capturing end of the imaging system has reached its desired position it provides an indication of such to the instrument coupled controllers (e.g., the motion controller 2202 or the instrument optimizer/controllers 2224a, 2224b, 2224c, depending upon which instruments are to be deployed and whether a centralized or distributed coupled mode architecture is employed) so that the instrument controllers in response thereof command their respective instrument manipulators to move their instruments into their optimal operating configurations. Placing the devices in their optimal operating configurations in this case generally involve placing the working ends of the instruments within the field of view of the imaging system and optimizing the workspaces of the instruments (such as shown, for example, in
As apparent from the coupled control mode examples described herein, not all position information provided to the motion coordinator or the device optimizer/controllers is used. Therefore, either more information than is necessary is transmitted between the device controllers with some of it being ignored or only necessary information is transmitted. Although the descriptions of
It is further noted that any time the image capturing end of the imaging system moves as a coupled device, the image reference frame used by the Surgeon for master/slave teleoperation changes and such change may affect the ability of Surgeon to perform precise surgical motions. In such case, a number of actions may be taken for large motions of the imaging capturing end of the imaging system. For example, haptic feedback may be provided on the input device to assist the Surgeon to take appropriate action, or a computer generated auxiliary view of devices extending out of a distal end of a guide tube may be provided from a stable (e.g., fixed) perspective and relied upon by the Surgeon for master/slave teleoperation, or the images captured by the imaging system may be modified in real-time to maintain an intuitively correct master/slave mapping with the modified images displayed on the surgeon console.
These descriptions of examples of various minimally invasive surgical systems, assemblies, and instruments, and of the associated components, are not to be taken as limiting. It should be understood that many variations that incorporate the aspects described herein are possible. For example, various combinations of rigid and flexible instruments and instrument components, and of guide tubes and guide tube components, fall within the scope of this description. The claims define the invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/211,864 (filed Apr. 8, 2016), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/094,721 (filed Apr. 8, 2016), now U.S. Pat. No. 10,188,472, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/095,011 (filed Dec. 3, 2013), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,333,042, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/780,071 (filed May 14, 2010), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,620,473, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,200 (filed Jun. 13, 2007), now U.S. Pat. No. 7,725,214, each of which is incorporated herein by reference. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/780,071 is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/489,566 (filed Jun. 23, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,089,256, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/780,071 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/613,328 (filed Nov. 5, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,084,623, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/541,913 (filed Aug. 15, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,903,546; each of which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition, this application is related to the following United States Patent Applications, all of which are incorporated by reference: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,217 entitled “Retraction of tissue for single port entry, robotically assisted medical procedures” by Mohr;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,222 entitled “Bracing of bundled medical devices for single port entry, robotically assisted medical procedures” by Mohr et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,231 entitled “Extendable suction surface for bracing medical devices during robotically assisted medical procedures” by Schena;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,236 entitled “Control system configured to compensate for non-ideal actuator-to-joint linkage characteristics in a medical robotic system” by Diolaiti et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,185 entitled “Surgical instrument actuation system” by Cooper et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,172 entitled “Surgical instrument actuator” by Cooper et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,165 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical system” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,161 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical instrument advancement” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,158 entitled “Surgical instrument control and actuation” by Cooper et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,154 entitled “Surgical instrument with parallel motion mechanism” by Cooper;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,149 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical apparatus with side exit instruments” by Larkin;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,170 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical apparatus with side exit instruments” by Larkin;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,143 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical instrument system” by Larkin;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,135 entitled “Side looking minimally invasive surgery instrument assembly” by Cooper et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,132 entitled “Side looking minimally invasive surgery instrument assembly” by Cooper et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,127 entitled “Guide tube control of minimally invasive surgical instruments” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,123 entitled “Minimally invasive surgery guide tube” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,120 entitled “Minimally invasive surgery guide tube” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,118 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical retractor system” by Larkin;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,114 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical illumination” by Schena et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,110 entitled “Retrograde instrument” by Duval et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,204 entitled “Retrograde instrument” by Duval et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,202 entitled “Preventing instrument/tissue collisions” by Larkin;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,189 entitled “Minimally invasive surgery instrument assembly with reduced cross section” by Larkin et al.;U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,191 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical system” by Larkin et al.; andU.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/762,196 entitled “Minimally invasive surgical system” by Duval et al.
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 |
4673988 | Jansson et al. | 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 |
5624390 | Van Dyne | Apr 1997 | A |
5624398 | Smith et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5631973 | Green | May 1997 | A |
5638819 | Manwaring et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5657429 | Wang et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5695500 | Taylor et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5704897 | Truppe | Jan 1998 | A |
5715729 | Toyama et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5737500 | Seraji et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5748767 | Raab | May 1998 | A |
5749362 | Funda et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754741 | Wang et al. | May 1998 | A |
5755725 | Druais | May 1998 | A |
5759151 | Sturges | Jun 1998 | A |
5759153 | Webler et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5762458 | Wang et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5765561 | Chen et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5784542 | Ohm et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5788688 | Bauer et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5791231 | Cohn et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5792135 | Madhani et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5797849 | Vesely et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5797900 | Madhani et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5807377 | Madhani et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5808665 | Green et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5810008 | Dekel et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5810880 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5814038 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815640 | Wang et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5817022 | Vesely | Oct 1998 | A |
5820545 | Arbter et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5820623 | Ng | Oct 1998 | A |
5831408 | Jacobus et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835693 | Lynch et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5836880 | Pratt | Nov 1998 | A |
5841950 | Wang et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5842473 | Fenster et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5842993 | Eichelberger et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5853367 | Chalek et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5855553 | Tajima et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5855583 | Wang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859934 | Green | Jan 1999 | A |
5876325 | Mizuno et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5877819 | Branson | Mar 1999 | A |
5878193 | Wang et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5887121 | Funda et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5907664 | Wang et al. | May 1999 | A |
5911036 | Wright et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5931832 | Jensen | Aug 1999 | A |
5938678 | Zirps et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5950629 | Taylor et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5964707 | Fenster et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5971976 | Wang et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5980460 | Oestensen et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980461 | Rajan | Nov 1999 | A |
5987591 | Jyumonji | Nov 1999 | A |
5993390 | Savord et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5993391 | Kamiyama | Nov 1999 | A |
5999662 | Burt et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6019724 | Gronningsaeter et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6036637 | Kudo | Mar 2000 | A |
6059718 | Taniguchi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6063095 | Wang et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072466 | Shah et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6083170 | Ben-Haim | Jul 2000 | A |
6084371 | Kress et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6096025 | Borders | Aug 2000 | A |
6115053 | Perlin | Sep 2000 | A |
6120433 | Mizuno et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6129670 | Burdette et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6184868 | Shahoian et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6196081 | Yau | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6201984 | Funda et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6204620 | McGee et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6224542 | Chang et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6226566 | Funda et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6241725 | Cosman | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6243624 | Wu et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246200 | Blumenkranz et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256529 | Holupka et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6270453 | Sakai | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292712 | Bullen | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6307285 | Delson et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6312435 | Wallace et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325808 | Bernard et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330837 | Charles et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6331181 | Tierney et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6342889 | Callahan | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6358749 | Orthman | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6371909 | Hoeg et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6371952 | Madhani et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6394998 | Wallace et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6398726 | Ramans et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6402737 | Tajima et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6424885 | Niemeyer et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425865 | Salcudean et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434416 | Mizoguchi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6436107 | Wang et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442417 | Shahidi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6456901 | Xi et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6459926 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468265 | Evans et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6491701 | Tierney et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6493608 | Niemeyer | 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 |
6817974 | Cooper 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 |
6866671 | Tierney et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6876891 | Schuler et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6899672 | Chin et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6905460 | Wang et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6926709 | Bieger et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6960162 | Saadat et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6984203 | Tartaglia et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6991627 | Madhani et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7041053 | Miyake | May 2006 | B2 |
7107090 | Salisbury et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107124 | Green | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7118582 | Wang et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7144367 | Chen et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155315 | Niemeyer et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155316 | Sutherland et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181315 | Watanabe et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194118 | Harris et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7211978 | Chang et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7297142 | Brock | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7302288 | Schellenberg et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7413565 | Wang et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7491198 | Kockro | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493153 | Ahmed et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7574250 | Niemeyer | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7725214 | Diolaiti | May 2010 | B2 |
7806891 | Nowlin et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7819859 | Prisco et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7833156 | Williams et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7865266 | Moll et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7963913 | Devengenzo et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7967813 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7979157 | Anvari | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7996110 | Lipow et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7998058 | Kura et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8004229 | Nowlin et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005571 | Sutherland et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8016749 | Clerc et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8062288 | Cooper et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8108072 | Zhao et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8120301 | Goldberg et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8130907 | Maurer, Jr. et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8142447 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8155479 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8170716 | Coste-Maniere et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8175861 | Huang et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8221304 | Shioda et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8244443 | Oshima et al. | Aug 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 |
8419717 | Diolaiti et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8541970 | Nowlin et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8554368 | Fielding et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8597280 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8620473 | Diolaiti et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8624537 | Nowlin et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8749189 | Nowlin et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8749190 | Nowlin et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8786241 | Nowlin et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8801601 | Prisco et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8816628 | Nowlin et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8823308 | Nowlin et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8864652 | Diolaiti et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8864751 | Prisco | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8903546 | Diolaiti et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8918211 | Diolaiti et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8944070 | Guthart et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9084623 | Gomez et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9089256 | Tognaccini et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9101397 | Guthart et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9138129 | Diolaiti | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9232984 | Guthart et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9259283 | Ogawa et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9333042 | Diolaiti et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9345387 | Larkin | May 2016 | B2 |
9387048 | Donhowe et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9469034 | Diolaiti et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9492927 | Diolaiti et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9516996 | Diolaiti et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9526587 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9565990 | Lee et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9622826 | Diolaiti et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9629520 | Diolaiti | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9717563 | Tognaccini et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9718190 | Larkin et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9788909 | Larkin et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9789608 | Itkowitz et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9795446 | Dimaio et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9801690 | Larkin et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9901408 | Larkin | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9949798 | Weir et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9956044 | Gomez et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
10008017 | Itkowitz et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10137575 | Itkowitz et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10188472 | Diolaiti et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10258425 | Mustufa et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10271909 | Guthart et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10271912 | Diolaiti et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10271915 | Diolaiti et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10282881 | Itkowitz et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10368952 | Tognaccini et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
10433919 | Guthart et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10507066 | Dimaio et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10537994 | Diolaiti et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
10695136 | Larkin | Jun 2020 | B2 |
10730187 | Larkin et al. | Aug 2020 | B2 |
10737394 | Itkowitz et al. | Aug 2020 | B2 |
10772689 | Gomez et al. | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10773388 | Larkin et al. | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10828774 | Diolaiti et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
10959798 | Diolaiti et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
10984567 | Itkowitz et al. | Apr 2021 | B2 |
11382702 | Tognaccini et al. | Jul 2022 | B2 |
11389255 | DiMaio et al. | Jul 2022 | B2 |
11399908 | Diolaiti et al. | Aug 2022 | B2 |
11432888 | Diolaiti et al. | Sep 2022 | B2 |
11596490 | Diolaiti et al. | Mar 2023 | B2 |
11638622 | Mustufa et al. | May 2023 | B2 |
11638999 | Itkowitz et al. | May 2023 | B2 |
20010035871 | Bieger et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020044104 | Friedrich et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020045888 | Ramans et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020089544 | Jahn et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120188 | Brock et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020128552 | Nowlin et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020156345 | Eppler et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020193800 | Kienzle, III et al. | 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, III | 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 |
20040138700 | Cooper et al. | Jul 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 |
20060013523 | Childlers et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060058988 | Defranoux et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060079108 | McCoy | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060142657 | Quaid et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149129 | Watts et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161045 | Merril et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161138 | Orban, 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 |
20060293592 | Jensen | Dec 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 |
20070151389 | Prisco et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156019 | Larkin et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156285 | Sillman et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070167801 | Webler et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070177009 | Bayer et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070197896 | Moll et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070229015 | Yoshida et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070255454 | Dariush | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070265491 | Krag et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070265495 | Vayser | 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 |
20070287889 | Mohr | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070287992 | Diolaiti et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070296366 | Quaid et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070299387 | Williams et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033240 | Hoffman et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080045800 | Farr | Feb 2008 | A2 |
20080051629 | Sugiyama et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080064921 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064927 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080064931 | Schena et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065097 | Duval et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065098 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065099 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065100 | Larkin | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065101 | Larkin | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065102 | Cooper | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065104 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065105 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065106 | Larkin | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065107 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065110 | Duval et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071288 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071289 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071290 | Larkin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071291 | Duval et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080081992 | Kagermeier | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091302 | Sholev | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080118115 | Williamson et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080119824 | Weitzner et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140087 | Barbagli | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080151041 | Shafer et al. | 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 |
20080269862 | Elmouelhi et al. | 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 Morales | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090088634 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090105750 | Price et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090192523 | Larkin 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 | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326552 | Diolaiti | 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 |
20100298839 | Castro | Nov 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 |
20110258568 | Pandurangan et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110290856 | Shelton, IV et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110313573 | Schreiber et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120132450 | Timm et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120154564 | Hoffman et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20130178868 | Roh | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130245375 | Dimaio et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130289767 | Lim et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130289768 | Yeung et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140052150 | Taylor et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20150032126 | Nowlin et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150051733 | Nowlin et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20170210012 | Larkin et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20180297206 | Larkin et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20190090967 | Guthart et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190110847 | Diolaiti et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190201134 | Diolaiti et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190209262 | Mustufa et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190298463 | Tognaccini et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20200085520 | Dimaio et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200331147 | Larkin et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20200368915 | Itkowitz et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20210059780 | Sutherland et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
20210153964 | Diolaiti et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210256749 | Itkowitz et al. | Aug 2021 | A1 |
20220296317 | Dimaio et al. | Sep 2022 | A1 |
20220354600 | Tognaccini et al. | Nov 2022 | A1 |
20220361969 | Diolaiti et al. | Nov 2022 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2682992 | Nov 2008 | CA |
1846181 | Oct 2006 | CN |
1879574 | Dec 2006 | CN |
101160104 | Apr 2008 | CN |
101184429 | May 2008 | CN |
101530347 | Sep 2009 | CN |
101594816 | Dec 2009 | CN |
101610712 | Dec 2009 | CN |
514584 | Nov 1992 | EP |
0646358 | Apr 1995 | EP |
812662 | Dec 1997 | EP |
1125557 | Aug 2001 | EP |
0732082 | Sep 2002 | EP |
1310844 | May 2003 | EP |
1424173 | Jun 2004 | EP |
1269389 | Sep 2005 | EP |
1131004 | Oct 2009 | EP |
H01280449 | Nov 1989 | JP |
H01310875 | Dec 1989 | JP |
H04231034 | Aug 1992 | JP |
H07184923 | Jul 1995 | JP |
H07265321 | Oct 1995 | JP |
H0889506 | Apr 1996 | JP |
H08107875 | Apr 1996 | JP |
H08132372 | May 1996 | JP |
H08154321 | Jun 1996 | JP |
H08215211 | Aug 1996 | JP |
H08224241 | Sep 1996 | JP |
H08275958 | Oct 1996 | JP |
H08299363 | Nov 1996 | JP |
H09141580 | Jun 1997 | JP |
H10146341 | Jun 1998 | JP |
H11309 | Jan 1999 | JP |
2000500679 | Jan 2000 | JP |
2000300579 | Oct 2000 | JP |
2001000448 | Jan 2001 | JP |
2001061850 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2001104333 | Apr 2001 | JP |
2001202531 | Jul 2001 | JP |
2001287183 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2002103258 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002287613 | Oct 2002 | JP |
2003053684 | Feb 2003 | JP |
2003300444 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2003339725 | Dec 2003 | JP |
2004105638 | Apr 2004 | JP |
3539645 | Jul 2004 | JP |
2004223128 | Aug 2004 | JP |
3587830 | Nov 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 |
2007276052 | Oct 2007 | JP |
2007531553 | Nov 2007 | JP |
2008173724 | Jul 2008 | JP |
2009006410 | Jan 2009 | JP |
2009012106 | Jan 2009 | JP |
2009039814 | Feb 2009 | JP |
2009525097 | Jul 2009 | JP |
4354042 | Oct 2009 | JP |
2009537229 | Oct 2009 | JP |
4883563 | Feb 2012 | JP |
WO-9501757 | Jan 1995 | WO |
WO-9507055 | Mar 1995 | WO |
WO-9729690 | Aug 1997 | WO |
WO-9743942 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO-9743943 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO-9823216 | Jun 1998 | WO |
WO-0030548 | Jun 2000 | WO |
WO-03061482 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO-2004014244 | Feb 2004 | WO |
WO-2004114037 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO-2005037120 | Apr 2005 | WO |
WO-2005039391 | May 2005 | WO |
WO-2005043319 | May 2005 | WO |
WO-2006079108 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO-2006091494 | Aug 2006 | WO |
WO-2006124390 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO-2007005555 | Jan 2007 | WO |
WO-2007012185 | Feb 2007 | WO |
WO-2007030173 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO-2007047782 | Apr 2007 | WO |
WO-2007088206 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO-2007088208 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO-2007136768 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO-2007146987 | Dec 2007 | WO |
WO-2008002830 | Jan 2008 | WO |
WO-2008065581 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO-2008094766 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO-2008103383 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO-2009034477 | Mar 2009 | WO |
WO-2009037576 | Mar 2009 | WO |
WO-2009044287 | Apr 2009 | WO |
WO-2009158164 | Dec 2009 | WO |
WO-2010039394 | Apr 2010 | WO |
WO-2010040685 | Apr 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
3D Slicer, http://slicer.org/welcome.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, p. 1; and Introduction, http:/slicer.org/intro/index.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, pp. 1-4. |
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, Tatsuo et al., “Bilateral control for manipulators with different configurations,” IECON Inn Conference on Industrial Electronics Control and Instrumentation, Oct. 22-26, 1984, pp. 40-45, vol. 1. |
Arun, K.S. et al., “Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 698-700, Sep. 1987. |
Askew R.S., et al., “Ground Control Testbed for Space Station Freedom Robot Manipulators,” IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1993, pp. 69-75. |
Azuma et al., “Recent Advances in Augmented Reality,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Dec. 2001, 14 pages. |
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: Experiments at Macro and Micro Scales,” IEEE Conference on Robots and Automation (ICRA '02), May 11-15, 2002, pp. 3354-3361, vol. 4, IEEE. |
Bettini , A. et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 29-Nov. 3, 2001, pp. 1171-1176, vol. 2. |
Bettini, Alessandro et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2004, pp. 953-966, vol. 20—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, p. 46, vol. 6—Supplement 1, Taylor & Francis Health Science. |
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “PC Based system for calibration, Reconstruction Processing and Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data Based on a Magnetic-Field Position and Orientation Sensing System,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science—Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 2001, pp. 13-22, vol. 2074, Springer. |
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robot-assisted 3D strain imaging for monitoring thermal ablation of liver,” Annual congress of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Emerging Technology Lunch Poster TP004, 2005, pp. 240-241. |
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotic Strain Imaging for Monitoring Thermal Ablation of Liver,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention MICCAI, 2004, pp. 81-88, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag. |
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotically assisted intraoperative ultrasound with application to ablative therapy of liver cancer,” Medical Imaging:Visualization, Image Guided Procedures, and Display, 2003, pp. 281-291, vol. 5029, SPIE. |
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Tracked 3D ultrasound in radio-frequency liver ablation,” in Medical Imaging 2003:Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2003, pp. 174-182, vol. 5035, SPIE. |
Borovoi, A.V., “Stability of a manipulator with force feedback,” Izv. AN SSSR Mekhanika Tverdogo Teal, 1990, pp. 37-45, vol. 25—Issue 1, Allerton Press, Inc. |
Boudet, Sylvie et al., “An Integrated Robotics and Medical Control Device to Quantify Atheromatous Plaques: Experiments on the Arteries of a Patient,” Proc of IEE/RSH International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1997, pp. 1533-1538, vol. 3. |
Brown, Myron M. et al., “Advances in Computational Stereo,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2003, pp. 993-1008, vol. 25 Issue, IEEE. |
Burdea, Grigore et al., “Dextrous Telerobotics with Force Feedback—an overview. Part 2: Control and Implementation,” Robotica, 1991, pp. 291-298, vol. 9. |
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Endoscopic Images to CT-Scans for Sinus Surgery,” Med Image Anal, 2004, pp. 413-421, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag. |
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Stereo Images to 3D Surface Models,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robots and Systems, 2004, pp. 2581-2586, vol. 3, IEEE. |
Burschka, Darius et al., “Navigating Inner Space: 3-D Assistance for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2005, pp. 5-26, vol. 52—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. |
Bzostek, Andrew, “Computer-Integrated needle therapy systems: Implementation and Analysis,” Computer Science, 2005, 379 pages. |
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “A Testbed System for Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Pattern Therapy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999, pp. 1098-1107, vol. 1679, Springer. |
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “An automated system for precise percutaneous access of the renal collecting system,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1997, pp. 299-308, vol. 1205, Springer-Verlag. |
Bzostek, Andrew, “Image Guided Percutaneous Pattern Placement in Soft Tissue,” The Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Computer Science: Baltimore, 1997, pp. 2007-01-2007-22. |
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. S291-S292, vol. 6—issue 4, Jones and Bartlett. |
Choti, Michael A., “Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Resection and Ablation,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2002, pp. S197-S203, vol. 13—No. 9. |
Christensen, B. et al., “Model based sensor directed remediation of underground storage tanks,” International Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, Apr. 1991, pp. 1377-1383, vol. 2. IEEE. |
Christoforou, E.G. et al., “Robotic Arm for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Interventions,” 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Feb. 20-22, 2006, pp. 911-916. |
Chung, Mathew et al., “Laparascopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Unresectable Hepatic Malignancies,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1020-1026, vol. 15—No. 9, Springer-Verlag. |
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the Art in Surgical Robotics:Clinical Applications and Technology Challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001 [retrieved on Feb. 24, 2002], pp. 1-26. |
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the art surgical robotics clinical applications and technology challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001, pp. 312-328, vol. 6; Part 6, John Wiley & Sons. |
Cleary,K. et al., “Robotically-assisted spine nerve blocks,” Radiology, 2001, 1 page, vol. 221—No. 618. |
Colgate J.E., “Power and Impedance Scaling in Bilateral Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, California, Apr. 1991, vol. 3, pp. 2292-2297. |
D'angelica M., “Staging Laparoscopy for Potentially Respectable Noncolorectal,” Ann Surg Oncol, 2002, pp. 204-209, vol. 9—No. 2, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. |
Daniilidis, Konstantinos, Hand-Eye Calibration Using Dual Quaternions, 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. |
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP21158299.4 mailed on May 21, 2021, 09 pages. |
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP18205738, mailed on Feb. 26, 2019, 11 pages (ISRG00510D1/EP). |
Fattal, Lischinsk, “Variational Classification for Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data,” Proceedings of the conference on Visualization, 2001, pp. 403-410, IEEE Computer Society. |
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “3-D Ultrasound Imaging:A Review,” IEEE Engineering and Medicine and Biology Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 41-51, vol. 15—Issue 6, IEEE. |
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the prostate,” SPIE International Symposium on Medical Imaging,San Diego, California,Published in SPIE: Medical Physics, Feb. 20-26, 1999, pp. 2-11, vol. 3859, SPIE. |
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Local Therapy and Biopsy,” 10th International Conference of Advance Robotics, 2001, pp. 133-151, IEEE. |
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Transrectal prostate biopsy inside closed MRI scanner with remote actuation under real-time image guidance,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 91-98, vol. 2488, Springer Verlag. |
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Surgical CAD/CAM and its application for robotically assisted percutaneous procedures,” 30th Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR), 2001, pp. 3-8, IEEE. |
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “System for Robotically Assisted Prostate Biopsy and Therapy With intraOperative CT Guidance,” Journal of Academic Radiology, 2002, pp. 60-74, vol. 9 No 1, Elsevier. |
Fisher, Scott S., “Virtual interface environment,” IEEE/A1AA 7th Digital Avionics Systems Conference Ft. Worth Texas, 1986, pp. 346-350, IEEE. |
Frantz D.D et al., “Accuracy assessment protocols for electromagnetic tracking systems,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2003, pp. 2241-2251, Issue 48. |
Fu, K.S. et al., “Robotics: control, sensing, vision, and intelligence,” 1987, pp. 12-76 and 201-265, Ch. 2 & 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 vols. 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. I-790-1-797, vol. 1—issue. 27, IEEE. |
Gigot, Jean-Francois et al., “Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignant Liver Tumors Prclimary Results of a Multicenter European Study,” Ann Surg, 2002, pp. 90-97, vol. 236—issue 1. |
Gonzales, Adriana Vilchis et al., “A System for Robotic Tele-echography,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 326-334, vol. 2208, Springer. |
Green, Philip, S. et al., “Mobile telepresence surgery,” 2nd Annual Intl Symposium on Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Maryland Nov. 1995, pp. 97-103. |
Grimson, W. Eric et al., “Automated Registration for Enhanced Reality Visualization in Surgery,” 1st International Symposium on Medical Robotic and Computer Assisted Surgery (MRCAS), Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 82-89. |
Grimson, W.E.L., et al., “An automatic registration method for frameless stereotaxy, image guided surgery, and enhanced reality visualization,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 15, No. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 129-140. |
Hager G., et al., “The X Vision System: A Portable Substrate for Real Time Vision Applications,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 1998, vol. 69 (1),pp. 23-37. |
Hager, Gregory D., “A Modular System for Robust Positioning Using Feedback from Stereo Vision,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Aug. 1997, vol. 13 (4), pp. 582-595. |
Hager, Gregory D. et al., “Efficient Region Tracking With Parametric Models of Geometry and Illumination,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1998, pp. 1025-1039, vol. 20—issue. 10, IEEE. |
Hager Gregory D. et al., “Multiple Kernel Tracking with SSD,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2004), 2004, pp. I-790-I-797, vol. 1—issue 27, IEEE. |
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Experimental and simulation studies of hard contact in force reflecting teleoperation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Proceedings, 1988, pp. 584-589, vol. 1, IEEE. |
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Performance Evaluation of a Six-Axis Generalized Force-Reflecting Teleoperator,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1991, pp. 620-633, vol. 21—No. 3, IEEE. |
Harris, S.J. et al., “A robotic procedure for transurethral resection of the prostate,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1995, pp. 264-271. |
Harris, S.J. et al., “Experiences with Robotic Systems for Knee Surgery,” First Joint Conference of CVRMed and MRCAS. Mar. 19-22, 1997, Grenoble, France; Springer, 1997, pp. 757-766. |
Herline A.J., et al., “Image-Guided Surgery: Preliminary Feasibility Studies of Frameless Stereotactic Liver Surgery,” Archives of Surgery, 1999, vol. 134 (6), pp. 644-650. |
Herline, Alan J. et al., “Surface Registration for Use in Interactive,” Image-Guided Liver Surgery, Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 11-17, vol. 5—No. 2. |
Herman, Barry C., et al, “Telerobotic surgery creates opportunity for augmented reality surgery,” Abstract No. T1F2, Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, vol. 11, Issue 2, p. 203, Apr. 2005. |
Herman, Barry C., “On the Role of Three Dimensional Visualization for Surgical Applications in Interactive Human Machine Systems,” Masters of Science Thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2005, 216 pages. |
Herper Matthew, “Watch a $1.5 Million Surgical Robot Play a Board Game,” Forbes. Apr. 12, 2011. 2 pages, Online [Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/04/12/watch-a-1-5-million-surgical-robot-play-a-board-game/#587224f011f5] Accessed Jun. 7, 2016. |
Hespanha J.P., et al., “What Tasks Can Be Performed with an Uncalibrated Stereo Vision System,” International Journal of Computer Vision, Nov. 1999, vol. 35 (1), 33 pages. |
Hill J.W., et al., “Telepresence surgery demonstration system,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994, vol. 3, pp. 2302-2307. |
Ho, S. C.et al., “Robot Assisted Knee Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 1995, pp. 292-300, vol. 14—Iss. 3, IEEE. |
Hong, Jae-Sung et al., “A Motion Adaptable Needle Placement Instrument Based on Tumor Specific Ultrasonic Image Segmentation,” Fifth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, MICCAI '02, Tokyo, Japan, Jul. 2002, pp. 122-129. |
Horn, Berthold K.P., “Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 629-642, Apr. 1987. |
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “A teleoperated microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment for eye surgery,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1993, pp. 265-280, vol. 2—No. 4, MIT Press. |
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “Ophthalmic microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment,” Comput. Biol. Med, 1995, vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 173-182, Pergamon. |
Hurteau et al., “Laparoscopic surgery assisted by a robotic cameraman: Concept and Experimental results,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 8-13, 1994, pp. 2286-2289, vol. 3, IEEE. |
Hutchinson, Seth et al., “A Tutorial Visual Servo Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1996, pp. 651-670, vol. 12 issue.5, IEEE. |
IEEE Systems and Software Engineering—Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems, IEEE Std 1471-2000, 34 pages, First Edition, Jul. 15, 2007. |
Inoue, Masao; “Six-Axis bilateral control of an articulated slave manipulator using a Cartesian master manipulator,” Advanced robotics, 1990, pp. 139-150, vol. 4—Issue 2, Robotic society of Japan. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064379, mailed on Mar. 29, 2013, 12 pages (ISRG03930/PCT). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064400, mailed on Mar. 27, 2013, 10 pages (ISRG03940/PCT). |
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., “The Effects of Spatial Cues in Augmented Reality Video Conferencing,” Hiroshima City University, Aug. 2001, 4 pages. |
Kato H., et al. “Virtual Object Manipulation on a Table-Top AR Environment,” Hiroshima City University, 2000, 9 pages. |
Kavoussi L.R., “Laparoscopic Donor Neptarectomy,” Kidney International, 2000, vol. 57, pp. 2175-2186. |
Kazanzides P., et al., “Force Sensing and Control for a Surgical Robot,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1992, vol. 1, pp. 612-617. |
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. |
Kazerooni, H. , “Human Extenders,” ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control, 1993, pp. 281-290, vol. 115 No. 2(B). |
Kazerooni, H., “Design and analysis of the statically balanced direct-drive robot manipulator,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 1989, pp. 287-293, vol. 6, Issue 4. |
Kazerooni, H. et al., “The Dynamics and Control of a Haptic Interface Device,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 453-464, vol. 10—Issue 4, IEEE. |
Kazerooni, H., “Human/Robot Interaction via the Transfer of Power and Information Signals Part I: Dynamics and Control Analysis,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 1632-1640, IEEE. |
Kilmer, R. D. et al., “Watchdog safety computer design and implementation,” RI/SME Robots 8 Conference, Jun. 1984, pp. 101-117. |
Kim, Won S. et al., “Active compliance and damping in telemanipulator control,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory New technology Report, 1991, pp. 1-14a, vol. 15—Issue 4, JPL & NASA Case No. NP0-1796917466, 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, “A Telerobotic Surgical System With Integrated Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Thesis for Master of Science in Engineering in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, May 2005, 63 pages. |
Leven, Joshua et al. “DaVinci Canvas: A Telerobotic Surgical System with Integrated, Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, J. Duncan et al. Eds., Palm Spring, Springer Verlag, 2005, vol. 3749, pp. 811-818. |
Levoy, Marc, “Display of Surfaces from Volume Data,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 1988, pp. 29-37, vol. 8—Iss. 3, IEEE. |
Li, M., “Intelligent Robotic Surgical Assistance for Sinus Surgery,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Aug. 2005, 246 pages. |
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Spatial Motion Constraints in Medical Robots Using Virtual Fixtures Generated by Anatomy,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, Apr. 2004, pp. 1270-1275. |
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Performance of surgical robots with automatically generated spatial virtual fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, Apr. 2005, pp. 217-222. |
Li, Ming et al., “A Constrained Optimization Approach to Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Aug. 2-6, 2005, pp. 1408-1413. |
Li, Ming et al., “Optimal Robot Control for 3D Virtual Fixture inConstrained ENT Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 165-172, vol. I, Springer Verlag. |
Li, Ming et al., “Recognition of Operator Motions for Real-Time Assistance using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE, Haptics 2003, 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Mar. 22-23, 2003, pp. 125-131, IEEE. |
Lievin et al., “Stereoscopic Augmented Reality System for Computer Assisted Surgery,” CARS 2001, Jun. 27-30, 2001, 5 pages. |
Loser, Michael H. et al., “A New Robotic System for Visually Controlled Percutaneous Interventions under CT Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000, pp. 887-896, vol. 1935, Springer Verlag. |
Loser, Michael H. et al., “Visual servoing for automatic and uncalibrated percutaneous procedures,” SPIE Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 270-281, vol. 3976, SPIE. |
Lunwei Z., et al., “FBG Sensor Devices for Spatial Shape Detection of Intelligent Colonoscope,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 835-840. |
Madhani A.J., “Design of Teleoperated Surgical Instruments for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Feb. 1998, 251 pages. |
Maehara, S. et al., “Laparoscopy-Assisted Hepatectomy Using the Endoclose,” Surgical Endoscopy, 2002, vol. 16 (9), pp. 1363-1364. |
Maier, Georg, E. et al., “A Dynamically Configurable General Purpose Automation Controller,” Proceedings of IFAC/IFIP Symp. on Software for Computer Control, 1986, pp. 47-52, Pergamon Press. |
Mala, T. et al., “A Comparative Study of the Short-Term Outcome Following Open and Laparoscopic Liver Resection of Colorectal Metastases,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 1059-1063, vol. 16(7), Springer Verlag. |
Marayong, Panadda et al., “Spatial Motion Constraints: Theory and Demonstrations for Robot Guidance Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp. 1954-1959, vol. 2, No. 14-19, IEEE. |
Marescaux, Jadques and Francesco Rubino, “Virtual Operative Fields for Surgical Simulation,” Chapter 4 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 26-31. |
Masamune K., et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Journal of Image Guided Surgery, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 242-248. |
Masamune K., 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 a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Image Guid Surg, 1995, pp. 165-172. |
Masamune Ken et al., “Development of CT-PAKY frame system—CT image guided needle puncturing manipulator and a single slice registration for urological surgery,” Proc. 8th annual meeting of Japanese Society for Computer Aided Surgery (JSCAS), 1999, pp. 89-90. |
Masamune, Ken H. et al., “A Newly Developed Stereotactic Robot with Detachable Drive for Neurosurgery,” 1st International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Cambridge, Massachusetts; Springer, Oct. 11-13, 1998, pp. 215-222, vol. 1496. |
Massie, Thomas H. et al., “The PHANTOM Haptic Interface: A Device for Probing Virtual Objects,” Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 1994, 7 pages. |
Mayer, Hermann et al., “Skill Transfer and Learning by Demonstration in a Realistic Scenario of Laparoscopic Surgery,” International Conference on Humanoids, 2003, 17 pages, IEEE. |
Mayer, Hermann et al., “The Endo [PA]R System for Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2004, pp. 3637-3642, vol. 4, IEEE. |
Megali, Giusepp et al., “A Computer-Assisted Robotic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy System for Video-Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2001, pp. 343-350, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag. |
Menack, M. et al., “Staging of pancreatic and ampullary cancers for resectability using laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1129-1134, vol. 15—No. 10, Springer-Verlag. |
Menon, Mani, “Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases,” Urol Clin N Am, 2004, pp. 701-717, vol. 31. |
Merola, Stephen et al., “Comparison of Laparoscopic Colectomy With and Without the Aid of a Robotic Camera Holder,” Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2002, pp. 45-61, vol. 12—No. 1, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. |
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, Fabien et al., “Flexible Calibrations of Actuated Stereoscopic Endoscope for Overlay in Robot Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—Part I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 25-34, vol. 2488, Springer-Verlag. |
Muratore, Diane M. et al., “Beam Calibration Without a Phantom for Creating a 3D Free-hand Ultrasound System,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 2001, pp. 1557-1566, vol. 27—No. 11, Elsevier. |
Nakakura, Eric K et al., “Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Management Recommendations,” Advances on Oncology, 2000, pp. 12-18, vol. 16—No. 2. |
Neisius B. et al., “Robotic manipulator for endoscopic handling of surgical effectors and cameras,” 1st Intl. Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1994, pp. 169-175, vol. 2. |
Nelson, Thomas R. et al., “Interactive Acquisition, Analysis, and Visualization of Sonographic Volume Data,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 1997, pp. 26-37, vol. 8, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
Nelson, Thomas, R. et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 1998, pp. 1243-1270, vol. 24—No. 9, Elsevier. |
Ng, W.S. et al., “Robotic Surgery, A First-Hand Experience in Transurethral Resection of the Prostate,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Mar. 1993, pp. 120-125, vol. 12—Issue 1, IEEE. |
Novotny Paul M. et al., “Tool Localization in 3D Ultrasound Images,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2003, pp. 969-970, vol. 2879, Springer. |
Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/638,172, filed Jun. 29, 2017, 11 pages (ISRG00410C1/US). |
Office Action mailed May 1, 2012 for Japanese Application No. 20090518470 filed Jun. 22, 2007, 7 pages (ISRG00410/JP). |
Office Action mailed Feb. 7, 2018 for Korean Application No. 10-2018-7000865 filed May 11, 2011, 9 pages (ISRG00510D1/KR). |
Office Action mailed Jun. 12, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 8 pages (ISRG01610D1/JP). |
Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 9 pages (ISRG01610D1/JP). |
Office Action mailed Oct. 24, 2019 for Korean Application No. 1020197022941 filed May 11, 2011, 14 pages (ISRG00510D3/KR). |
Office Action mailed Sep. 21, 2018 for Korean Application No. 1020187022667 filed May 11, 2011, 13 pages (ISRG00510D2/KR). |
Ohbuchi R., et al., “Incremental Volume Reconstruction and Rendering for 3D Ultrasound Imaging,” The International Society of Optical Engineering, 1992, vol. 1808, pp. 312-323. |
Park, Shinsuk et al., “Virtual Fixtures for Robotic Cardiac Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 1419-1420, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag. |
Patriciu A., et al., “Motion-based Robotic Instrument Targeting under C-Arm Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 988-998. |
Paul, Howard A. et al., “Development of a Surgical Robot for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics, Dec. 1992, pp. 57-66, vol. 285. |
Payandeh S., et al., “On Application of Virtual Fixtures as an Aid for Telemanipulation and Training,” Proceedings 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS), Mar. 2002, pp. 18-23. |
PCT/US07/71850 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Feb. 13, 2008, 9 pages. |
PCT/US09/46234 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Sep. 9, 2009, 13 pages. |
PCT/US09/56078 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Jan. 20, 2010, 12 pages. |
PCT/US10/28886 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Jul. 6, 2010, 11 pages. |
PCT/US10/28897 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Jul. 19, 2010, 16 pages. |
PCT/US10/38246 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Sep. 14, 2010, 17 pages. |
PCT/US2011/036109 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Oct. 19, 2011, 16 pages. |
PCT/US2011/036109 Invitation to Pay Additional Fees and Partial International Search Report, mailed 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 minimally invasive approach to pelvic osteolysis,” 2002, in Proc. Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), pp. 349-350. |
Prasad Srinivas K. et al., “A Modular 2-DOF Force-Sensing Instrument for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 279-286, vol. I, Springer. |
Pre-Appeal Examination Report, mailed Sep. 3, 2014 for Japanese Application No. JP20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pages (ISRG01940/JP). |
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 International Symposium, 1993, pp. 76-82, IEEE. |
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Robot-assisted stapedotomy: micropick fenestration of the stapes footplate,” Otolaryngology—Head and NeckSurgery, 2002, pp. 417-426, vol. 127. |
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Task Performance in stapedotomy: Comparison between surgeons of different experience levels,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 2003, pp. 71-77, vol. 128—No. 1. |
Roy, Jaydeep, “Advances in the design, analysis and control of force controlled robots,” Master's Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001, 210 Pages. |
Sakas, Georgios et al., “Extracting surfaces from fuzzy 3D-Ultrasound data,” Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1995, pp. 465-474. |
Salcudean, Septimiu E. et al., “A Robot System for Medical Ultrasound,” 9th International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR'99), 1999, pp. 195-202. |
Santambrogio, R. et al., “Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures of the Liver During Laparoscopy: Technical Considerations,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 349-354, Springer-Verlag. |
Sastry 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/research/projects/Solus/, downloaded Jul. 5, 2007, 4 pages. |
Sommer, Graham et al., “Liver tumors: utility of characterization at dual frequency US,” Radiology, 1999, pp. 629-636, vol. 211—No. 3. |
Steele, Micah R. et al., “Shared control between human and machine: using a haptic steering wheel to aid in land vehicle guidance,” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2001, pp. 1671-1675. |
Steen, Erik et al., “Volume Rendering of 3D Medical Ultrasound Data Using Direct Feature Mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1994, pp. 517-525, vol. 13—Iss. 3, IEEE. |
Stefansic, James D. et al., “Registration of Physical Space to Laparoscopic Image Space for Use in Minimally Invasive Hepatic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 1012-1023, vol. 19—No. 10, IEEE. |
Stetten, George D et al., “Overlaying Ultrasound Images on Direct Vision,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2001, pp. 235-240, vol. 20—No. 3. |
Stewart, Charles V. et al., “The Dual-Bootstrap Iterative Closest Point Algorithm With Application to Retinal Image Registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Nov. 2003, pp. 1379-1394, vol. 22—No. 11, IEEE. |
Stoainovici D., et al., “Robotic Telemanipulation for Percutaneous Renal Access,” in 16th World Congress on Endourology, New York City, Sep. 3-6, 1998, Poster Session 17-5, p. S201. |
Stoianovici, Dan, “A Modular Surgical Robotic System for Image Guided Percutaneous Procedures,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 404-410, vol. 1496, Springer-Verlag, 1998. |
Stoianovici, Dan et al., “Robotic for Precise Percutaneous Needle Insertion,” In Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Urology and Engineering. San Diego, May 1998, pp. 4. |
Stoll, Jeff, “Ultrasound-based servoing of manipulators for telesurgery,” Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VIII Conference, 2001, pp. 78-85, SPIE. |
Sublett, John W. et al. “Design and implementation of a digital teleultrasound system for real-time remote diagnosis,” 8th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press, Jun. 9-10, 1995, pp. 292-298. |
Suramo, I. et al., “Cranio-caudal movements of the liver, pancreas and kidneys in respiration,” Acta Radiologica: Diagnosis, 1984, pp. 129-131, vol. 25, Radiological Societies. |
Susil, Robert, C. et al., “A Single Image Registration Method for CT Guided Interventions,” 2nd International Symposium on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions (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. |
Tavakoli, M., et al, A Force Reflective Master-Slave System for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp. 3077-3082, vol. 4, IEEE. |
Taylor R., et al., “A Telerobotic System for Augmentation of Endoscopic Surgery,” in IEEE Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1992, vol. 14, pp. 1054-1056. |
Taylor R.H., et al., “A Computational Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision, 1986, vol. 726, pp. 438-440. |
Taylor, R.H., et al., “A General Purpose Control Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Robotics, 1986, pp. 165-173, MIT Press. |
Taylor R.H. et al., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Chapter 52 in Springer Handbook of Robotics, Springer, 2008, pp. 1199-1222. |
Taylor R.H., 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, Russell H., “A Perspective on Medical Robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, No. 9, Sep. 2006, pp. 1652-1664. |
Taylor, Russell H. “An Image-directed Robotic System for Precise Orthopaedic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics mid Automation, 1994, pp. 261-275, vol. 10—No. 3, IEEE. |
Taylor, Russell H. and Christopher Hasser, “Development of a Surgical Assistant Workstation for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” NSF Proposal No. 0646678, Aug. 2006, 16 pages. |
Taylor, Russell H. and Dan Stoianovici, “Medical Robotic Systems in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Problems in General Surgery, by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1-9, 2003. |
Taylor, Russell H. and Peter Kazanzides, “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Interventional Medicine,” Chapter 18: Biomedical Information Technology, David Dagan Feng, Ed., Academic Press (Elsevier), 2008, pp. 393-416. |
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “A Steady-Hand Robotic System for Microsurgical Augmentation,” International Journal of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 1201-1210, vol. 18—No. 12, Springer- Verlag. |
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, May/Jun. 1995, pp. 279-288, vol. 14, Issue 3, IEEE. |
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “AML A Manufacturing Language,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 1982, pp. 19-41, vol. 1—No. 3, SAGE Publications. |
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “An Image-directed Robotic System for Hip Replacement Surgery,” J. Robotics Society of Japan, 1990, pp. 615-620, vol. 8—issue 5. |
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “An Integrated Robot Systems Architecture,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 1983, pp. 842-856, vol. 71—Issue 7, IEEE. |
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “An overview of computer-integrated surgery at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center,” IBM J Research and Development, 1996, pp. 163-183, vol. 40, Issue 2, IBM Corp. |
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “Chapter 46: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” in Computer-Integrated Surgery, R. H. Taylor, et al., Editors, 1996, MIT Press. pp. 581-592. |
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Computer-Integrated Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Concept and Preliminary Results,” 1999, Medical image analysis, pp. 301-319, vol. 3—Issue 3, Oxford University Press. |
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Medical Robotics in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics md Automation, 2003, pp. 765-781, vol. 19—No. 5, IEEE. |
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “Redundant Consistency Checking in a Precise Surgical Robot,” in 12'th Annual Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1990, pp. 1933-1935, vol. 12—No. 5, IEEE. |
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Research Report: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Accepted to IEEE EIMBS Magazine, Special Issue on “Robotics in Surgery,” Dec. 1994, 24 pages. |
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “The Architecture of an Integrated Robot System,” First Int. Conf. on Advanced Robotics (ICAR)., 1983, pp. 389-398. |
Taylor, Russell H. “Medical Robots,” in Computer and Robotic Assisted Knee and Hip Surgery, 2004, pp. 54-59, Oxford Press. |
Taylor, Russell H., “Robotics in Orthopedic Surgery,” In Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), L.P. Nolte and R. Ganz, Editors. 1999, Hogrefe and Huber, 1999, pp. 35-41. |
Taylor, Russell H. “The Planning and Execution of Straight Line Manipulator Trajectories,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1979, pp. 424-436, vol. 23—Issue 4. |
Taylor, Russell H., “Ultrasound Assistant for a Laparoscopic Surgical Robot,” NIH STTR Phase II Proposal R42-RR019159, revised May 2001, 54 pages. |
Taylor, Russell H., Videotape: “Computer Assisted Surgery at IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,” 22 minutes 10 seconds, 1994 and 1995. |
Teistler, Michael et al., “Virtual Tomography: A New Approach to Efficient Human-Computer Interaction for Medical Imaging,” Proc. of SPIE,, The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 512-519, vol. 5029. |
Tewari, Ashutosh et al., “Technique of da Vinci Robot-Assisted Anatomic Radical Prostatectomy,” Urology, 2002, pp. 569-572, vol. 60—No. 4, Elsevier. |
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 mailed Jul. 9, 2009, 40 pages (ISRG00420/US). |
Vertut, Jean and Phillipe Coiffet, Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development, English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages. |
Vibet, C., “Properties of Master-Slave Robots,” Motor-con, MOTORCON'87, Hannover, Apr. 1987, pp. 309-316. |
Vilchis, Adriana et al., “A New Robot Architecture for Tele-Echography,” IEEE Trans. Robotics & Automation, pp. 922-926, 2003, vol. 19—No. 5, IEEE. |
Viswanathan, Anand et al., “Immediate Ultrasound Calibration with Three Poses and Minimal Image Processing,” MICCAI, 2004, pp. 446-454, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag. |
Webster R.J. et al., “Nonholonomic Modeling of Needle Steering,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2006, vol. 25 (5-6), pp. 509-525. |
Webster Robert J. et al., “Design Considerations for Robotic Needle Steering,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005, pp. 3588-3594, IEEE. |
Wei, Guo-Quing et al., “Real-Time Visual Servoing for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1997, pp. 40-45, vol. 16—Issue 1, IEEE. |
Wei, Zhouping et al “Robot-assisted 3D-TRUS guided prostate brachytherapy: system integration and validation,” Medical Physics, 2004, pp. 539-548, vol. 31—No. 3. |
Wengert, C., “Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab,” http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/, downloaded Oct. 24, 2006, 9 pages. |
Wilhelm, Dirk et al., “Electromagnetically Navigated Laparoscopic Ultrasound,” Surg. Technol. Int, 2003, pp. 50-54, vol. 11. |
Wood Thomas F. et al., “Radiofrequency ablation of 231 Unresectable hepatic tumors:indications, limitations, and complications,” Ann. Surg. Oncol, 2000, pp. 593-600, vol. 7, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. |
Wu, Xiaohui et al., “A Framework for Calibration of Electromagnetic Surgical Navigation Systems,” IEEE RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS), 2003, pp. 547-552, vol. 1, IEEE. |
Xu, Sheng et al., “3D Motion Tracking of Pulmonary Lesions Using CT Fluoroscopy Images for Robotically Assisted Lung Biopsy,” Proc. SPIE. 5367, Medical Imaging 2004: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display, 394. (May 5, 2004), pp. 394-402. |
Yamagata H., et al., “Development of a New Display Method for Compound 3D Ultrasound Images: Fusion 3D Images From B-mode and 3D Doppler Images,” 1999, vol. 70, pp. 43-46. |
Yao, Jianhua et al., “A C-arm fluoroscopy-guided progressive cut refinement strategy using a surgical robot,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 373-390, vol. 5—No. 6, Wiley-Liss, Inc. |
Yao, Jianhua, et al., “A Progressive Cut Refinement Scheme for Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery Using C-arm Fluoroscopy,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medical Image and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI'99), Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 1010-1019, vol. 1679. |
Yao, Jianhua et al., “Deformable registration between a statistical born density atlas and X-ray images,” Second International Conference on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery, 2002, pp. 168-169. |
Zacherl, Johannes et al., “Current value of intraoperative sonography during surgery for hepatic neoplasms,” World J Surg, 2002, pp. 550-554, vol. 26—No. 5. |
Zhang, Xiaoli and Shahram Payandeh, “Application of Visual Tracking for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 315-328, 2002. |
Zhang, Z., “A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration,” Technical report MSR-TR-98-71, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Dec. 1998, pp. 1-21. |
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP23154997.3, mailed on Sep. 28, 2023, 13 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210290326 A1 | Sep 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12780071 | May 2010 | US |
Child | 14095011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16211864 | Dec 2018 | US |
Child | 17332928 | US | |
Parent | 15094721 | Apr 2016 | US |
Child | 16211864 | US | |
Parent | 14095011 | Dec 2013 | US |
Child | 15094721 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12613328 | Nov 2009 | US |
Child | 12780071 | US | |
Parent | 12541913 | Aug 2009 | US |
Child | 12613328 | US | |
Parent | 12489566 | Jun 2009 | US |
Child | 12780071 | US | |
Parent | 11762200 | Jun 2007 | US |
Child | 12780071 | US |