Multi-user medical robotic system for collaboration or training in minimally invasive surgical procedures

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9666101
  • Patent Number
    9,666,101
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, January 26, 2016
    8 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, May 30, 2017
    6 years ago
Abstract
A multi-user medical robotic system for collaboration or training in minimally invasive surgical procedures includes first and second master input devices, a first slave robotic mechanism, and at least one processor configured to generate a first slave command for the first slave robotic mechanism by switchably using one or both of a first command indicative of manipulation of the first master input device by a first user and a second command indicative of manipulation of the second master input device by a second user. To facilitate the collaboration or training, both first and second users communicate with each other through an audio system and see the minimally invasive surgery site on first and second displays respectively viewable by the first and second users.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to minimally invasive robotic surgery systems and in particular, to a multi-user medical robotic system for collaboration or training in minimally invasive surgical procedures.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

While clinical growth of laparoscopic procedures has stalled, tele-operated robotic surgical systems have been successful in achieving greater procedure development and clinical acceptance in several surgical fields. Two examples of such surgical robotic systems include the da Vinci® Surgical System of Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif., and the Aesop® and Zeus® robot systems of Computer Motion, Inc., which has been acquired by Intuitive Surgical, Inc.


For example, the da Vinci® surgical system can be used for a wide variety of surgical procedures such as mitral valve repair, Nissen Fundoplication for the treatment of GERD disease, gastric bypass surgery for obesity, radical prostatectomy (da Vinci® Prostatectomy) for the removal of the prostate, esophageal surgery, thymectomy for myasthenia gravis, and epicardial pacemaker leads for biVentricular resynchronization.


Minimally invasive surgery offers many benefits over traditional open surgery techniques, including less pain, shorter hospital stays, quicker return to normal activities, minimal scarring, reduced recovery time, and less injury to tissue. Consequently, demand for minimally invasive surgery is strong and growing.


Since robotic minimally invasive surgery (“RMIS”) is still a nascent field, however, there are no commercially available training systems that allow a trainee and mentor to experience the same environment, and physically interact as they would in open or even conventional laparoscopic surgery training. Instead, current RMIS training consists of training courses explaining the robotic device and surgical technique accompanied by laboratory practice in animal and cadaver models, followed by watching already proficient surgeons perform the procedure. A proficient surgeon then assists/supervises the newly trained surgeon during his or her initial procedures.


In a tele-robotic paradigm, this mentoring problem can be generalized irrespective of the location of the two surgeons. However, when they are collocated, the ability to view the surgical scene together, combined with the ability to exchange or share control of the instruments can enable physical interaction between the trainee and the mentor, and provide a superior training environment.


OBJECTS AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Thus, a multi-user medical robotic system which allows a mentor surgeon to communicate with trainee surgeons, to see the same surgical site as the trainee surgeons, to share control of robotically controlled surgical instruments with the trainee surgeons so that they may feel through their controls what the mentor surgeon is doing with his/hers, and to switch control to selected ones of the trainee surgeons and over-ride that control if necessary during the performance of a minimally invasive surgical procedure, would be highly beneficial for training purposes.


In addition, such a multi-user medical robotic system would also be useful for collaborative surgery in which multiple surgeons work together as a team (i.e., in collaboration) to perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure.


Accordingly, one object of the present invention is to provide a multi-user medical robotic system that facilitates collaboration between surgeons while performing minimally invasive surgical procedures.


Another object is to provide a multi-user medical robotic system that facilitates training of surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures.


These and additional objects are accomplished by the various aspects of the present invention, wherein briefly stated, one aspect is a medical robotic system comprising: first master input device configured to generate a first command indicative of manipulation of the first master input device by a first user; second master input device configured to generate a second command indicative of manipulation of the second master input device by a second user; first slave robotic mechanism configured to manipulate a first surgery-related device according to a first slave command; at least one processor configured to generate the first slave command by switchably using one or both of the first command and the second command; and an audio system configured for audio communication between the first user and the second user.


Another aspect is a multi-user medical robotic system for collaboration in minimally invasive surgical procedures, comprising: first and second master input devices; first and second slave robotic mechanisms; a switch mechanism operable by a first operator for selectively associating the first and the second slave robotic mechanisms with the first and the second master input devices so that the first operator manipulating the first master input device and a second operator manipulating the second master input device may perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure at a surgical site in collaboration with each other; and first and second headsets respectively worn by the first and the second operators so that they may communicate with each while performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure in collaboration with each other.


Another aspect is a multi-user medical robotic system for training in minimally invasive surgical procedures, comprising: mentor and trainee master input devices respectively manipulatable by a mentor and a trainee; a first slave robotic mechanism; a switch mechanism operable by the mentor for selectively associating the first slave robotic mechanism with the mentor master input device and the trainee master input device so that either or both the mentor or the trainee may control operation of the first slave robotic mechanism to perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure; and a mentor microphone proximate to the mentor and a trainee hearing device proximate to the trainee so that the mentor may speak to the trainee while the mentor is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.


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





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 illustrates a top view of a multi-user medical robotic system for collaboration or training in minimally invasive surgical procedures, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 2-3 illustrate simplified front views respectively of mentor and trainee master control stations configured to utilize aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 4 illustrates a block diagram of a master/slave control system included in the multi-user medical robotic system, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 5-9 illustrate block diagrams of selected master/slave associations for a multi-user medical robotic system, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 10 illustrates a block diagram of components of the multi-user medical robotic system for selective association of masters and slaves, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 11 illustrates an example of input/output ports for an association module, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate routing tables corresponding to the master/slave associations of FIGS. 9 and 8, respectively, of an association module utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 14 and 15 illustrate block diagrams for alternative embodiments of a shared command filter of an association module, utilizing aspects of the present invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT


FIG. 1 illustrates, as an example, a multi-user medical robotic system 100 useful for collaboration or training in minimally invasive surgical procedures. For example, in a collaborative operation, a team of two or more proficient surgeons may work together to perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure, or an expert surgeon may advise a primary surgeon performing a minimally invasive surgical procedure. In a hands-on training environment, a mentor surgeon may act as a mentor or teacher to train one or more trainee surgeons in minimally invasive surgical procedures.


Although configured in this example for a local environment with all participants locally present, the multi-user medical robotic system 100 may also be configured through a network connection for remote participation by one or more participants. For example, a remote surgeon may provide guidance or support to a primary surgeon at a local operating site. In such case, the advising surgeon may share the immersive audio/video environment with the primary surgeon, and may access the surgical instruments as desired by the primary surgeon.


Although a training example is described herein, the described components and features of the system 100 are also useful in collaborative surgery. In particular, it is useful for a lead surgeon in the case of a collaborative procedure to control the selective association of certain surgical tools and/or an endoscope with any one of the participating surgeons during a minimally invasive surgical procedure, just as it is for a mentor surgeon in the case of a training session to control the selective association of certain surgical tools and/or an endoscope with any one of the trainee surgeons during a minimally invasive surgical training session. Also, it is useful in both the collaboration and training environments for all participants to be able to view the surgical site and to communicate with each other during the surgical procedure or training session.


In reference to FIG. 1, a Mentor Surgeon (M) instructs or mentors one or more Trainee Surgeons, such as (T1) and (TK), in minimally invasive surgical procedures performed on a real-life or dummy Patient (P). To assist in the surgical procedures, one or more Assistant Surgeons (A) positioned at the Patient (P) site may also participate.


The system 100 includes a mentor master control station 101 operative by the Mentor Surgeon (M), a slave cart 120 having a plurality of slave robotic mechanisms (also referred to as “robotic arm assemblies” and “slave manipulators”) 121˜123, and one or more trainee master control stations, such as trainee master control stations 131 and 161, operative by Trainee Surgeons, such as Trainee Surgeons (T1) and (TK). The mentor master control station 101, in this example, communicates directly with the slave cart 120, and the trainee master control stations communicate indirectly with the slave cart 120 through the mentor master control station 101.


The slave cart 120 is positioned alongside the Patient (P) so that surgery-related devices (such as 157) included at distal ends of the slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123 may be inserted through incisions (such as incision 156) in the Patient (P), and manipulated by one or more of the participating surgeons at their respective master control stations to perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure on the Patient (P). Each of the slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123 preferably includes linkages that are coupled together and manipulated through motor controlled joints in a conventional manner.


Although only one slave cart 120 is shown being used in this example, additional slave carts may be used as needed. Also, although three slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123 are shown on the cart 120, more or less slave robotic mechanisms may be used per slave cart as needed.


A stereoscopic endoscope is commonly one of the surgery-related devices included at the distal end of one of the slave robotic mechanisms. Others of the surgery-related devices may be various tools with manipulatable end effectors for performing the minimally invasive surgical procedures, such as clamps, graspers, scissors, staplers, and needle holders.


Use of the stereoscopic endoscope allows the generation and display of real-time, three-dimensional images of the surgical site. Although the stereoscopic endoscope is preferred for this reason, a monoscopic endoscope may alternatively be used where either three-dimensional images are not needed or it is desirable to reduce communication bandwidth requirements.


Alternatively, the system may include multiple endoscopes providing each individual surgeon with a desired view of the workspace. Advantageously, the multiple endoscopes may even be packaged in a single instrument, but with separate steerable camera tips. Optionally, these multiple endoscopes may provide different fields of view such as using a very wide field of view (e.g. with a fish-eye lens) that is appropriately rectified before being displayed to the surgeon.


To facilitate collaboration between surgeons or training of trainee surgeons in minimally invasive surgical procedures, each of the participating surgeons has an associated display to view the surgical site, and a communication means such as a microphone and earphone set to communicate with other participating surgeons.


More particularly, a display 102 is provided with or integrated into the mentor master control station 101, a display 132 is provided with or integrated into the trainee master control station 131, and a display 142 is provided on a vision cart 141 which is in view of the one or more Assistant Surgeons (A), so that the Mentor Surgeon (M), the Trainee Surgeon (T), and the Assistant Surgeon(s) (A) may view the surgical site during minimally invasive surgical procedures.


The vision cart 141, in this example, includes stereo camera electronics which convert pairs of two-dimensional images received from the stereoscopic endoscope into information for corresponding three-dimensional images, displays one of the two-dimensional images on the display 142 of the vision cart 141, and transmits the information of the three-dimensional images over a stereo vision channel 111 to the master control stations of participating surgeons, such as the mentor master control station 101 and the trainee master control stations, for display on their respective displays. For displaying stereo information using properly configured conventional displays, the vision cart 141 may contain devices for frame synchronization, and in that case, conventional video cables may be sufficient for sharing this information between collocated surgeons.


The communication means provided to each of the participants may include individual microphone and earphones (or speaker) components, or alternatively, individual headphone sets, such as headphone set 103 shown as being placed on the head of the Mentor Surgeon (M), as part of a conventional audio system. Preferably a duplex audio communication system (microphone and speaker pair) is built into each surgeon's master control station. Alternatively, headsets may be used, including those using wireless communications to provide maximum comfort and freedom of movement to their users or those that may be connected through wires to their respective master control stations or slave cart, which are in turn, are connected together through mentor/slave lines 110 and mentor/trainee lines 112 for voice communications between the Mentor, Trainee and Assistant Surgeons.


In addition to transmitting voice communications, the mentor/slave and the mentor/trainee lines, 110 and 112, also transmit data. For high bandwidth and low latency communication, the lines 110 and 112, as well as the stereo vision channel lines 111, are preferably composed of fiber optic communication cables/channels, which are especially useful when any of the mentor master control station 101, the trainee master control stations (such as 131 and 161), and the slave cart 120 are remotely situated from the others. On the other hand, for co-located surgeons, normal shielded video and audio cables may be sufficient, while fiber optical communication channels may be used for the mentor/slave or mentor/trainee data transfer lines.



FIGS. 2-3 illustrate simplified front views of the mentor master control station 101 and the trainee master control station 131. The mentor master control station 101 includes right and left master input devices, 203 and 204, whose manipulations by the Mentor Surgeon (M) are sensed by sensors (not shown) and provided to an associated processor 220 via an instrumentation bus 210. Similarly, the trainee master control station 131 includes right and left master input devices, 303 and 304, whose manipulations by the Trainee Surgeon (T1) are sensed by sensors (not shown) and provided to an associated processor 320 via an instrumentation bus 310. Each of the master input devices (also referred to herein as “master manipulators”) may include, for example, any one or more of a variety of input devices such as joysticks, gloves, trigger-guns, hand-operated controllers, and the like.


The mentor master control station 101 is preferably configured with one or more switch mechanisms to allow the Mentor Surgeon (M) to selectively associate individual of the slave robotic mechanisms 121-123 with any of the master input devices of the mentor master control station 101 and the trainee master control stations. As one example, two switch mechanisms may be activated by right or left buttons, 205 and 207, positioned on the right and left master input devices, 203 and 204, so as to be manipulatable by right and left thumbs of the Mentor Surgeon (M).


As another example, two switch mechanisms may be activated by right or left footpedals, 215 and 217, which are positioned so as to be manipulatable by right and left feet of the Mentor Surgeon (M). One switch mechanism may also be voice activated by the Mentor Surgeon (M) using his headset 103 or another microphone (not shown), which is coupled to the processor 220 so that it may perform voice recognition and processing of the spoken instructions of the Mentor Surgeon (M).


For complex associations of various aspects of system master input devices and slave robotic mechanisms, a simple binary switch (or combinations of switches) may not be suitable. In such cases, a more flexible association selector may be required, such as a menu of available options displayed on the display 102 of the mentor master control station 101 that the Mentor Surgeon (M) may select from, by using a conventional pointing device, touch screen, or voice activation. The master input devices or input devices built into the master input devices may also be used for this purpose.


To perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure, the operating surgeons perform the procedure by manipulating their respective master input devices which in turn, causes associated slave robotic mechanisms to manipulate their respective surgery-related devices through minimally invasive incisions in the body of the Patient (P) while the surgeons view the surgical site through their respective displays.


The number of surgery-related devices used at one time and consequently, the number of slave robotic mechanisms in the system 100 will generally depend on the diagnostic or surgical procedure and the space constraints within the operating room among other factors. If it is necessary to change one or more of the surgery-related devices being used during a procedure, the Assistant (A) may remove the surgery-related device that is no longer needed from the distal end of its slave robotic mechanism, and replace it with another surgery-related device from a tray of such devices in the operating room. Alternatively, a robotic mechanism may be provided for the surgeon to execute tool exchanges using his/her master input device.


Preferably, the master input devices will be movable in the same degrees of freedom as their associated surgery-related devices to provide their respective surgeons with telepresence, or the perception that the master input devices are integral with their associated surgery-related devices, so that their respective surgeons have a strong sense of directly controlling them. To this end, position, force, and tactile feedback sensors are preferably employed that transmit position, force, and tactile sensations from the devices (or their respective slave robotic mechanisms) back to their associated master input devices so that the operating surgeons may feel such with their hands as they operate the master input devices.


To further enhance the telepresence experience, the three-dimensional images displayed on the displays of the master control stations are oriented so that their respective surgeons feel that they are actually looking directly down onto the operating site. To that end, an image of the surgery-related device that is being manipulated by each surgeon appears to be located substantially where the surgeon's hands are located even though the observation points (i.e., the endoscope or viewing camera) may not be from the point of view of the image.



FIG. 4 illustrates, as an example, a block diagram of a master/slave control system 400 for an associated master manipulator and slave manipulator pair. An example of such a master/slave manipulator pair is the master device input 203 of the mentor master control station 101 and the slave robotic mechanism 121. Master manipulator inputs and corresponding slave manipulator outputs are indicated by arrows AB, and slave manipulator inputs and corresponding master manipulator outputs in the case of feedback are indicated by arrows BA.


Although the master processing unit 420 and slave processing unit 430 described herein may be implemented as analog circuitry, preferably they are implemented digitally using conventional Z-transform techniques for sampled data systems and provided in program code executed by processors of master control stations associated with the master and slave manipulators, 404 and 416, as will be described in further detail in reference to FIG. 10.


In the following description, the master manipulator (i.e., master input device) 404 will be referred to as the master and the slave manipulator (i.e., slave robotic mechanism) 416 will be referred to as the slave, to simplify the description. Also, positions sensed by joint encoders in the master manipulator as well as those in the slave manipulator are referred to as “joint space” positions. Furthermore, references to positions and positioned signals may include orientation, location, and/or their associated signals. Similarly, forces and force signals may generally include both force and torque in their associated signals.


For ease of explanation, the master/slave control system 400 will be described from an initial condition in which the master is at an initial position and the slave is at a corresponding initial position. However, in use, the slave tracks the master position in a continuous manner.


Referring to the control system 400, the master is moved from an initial position to a new position corresponding to a desired position of the end effector (located on the distal end of the slave) as viewed by the surgeon on his display. Master control movements are input by the surgeon 402, as indicated by arrow AB1, by applying a force to the master 404 to cause the master 404 to move from its initial position to the new position.


As the master 404 is thus manipulated by the surgeon, signals from the encoders on the master 404 are input to a master controller 406 as indicated by arrow AB2. At the master controller 406, the signals are converted to a joint space position corresponding to the new position of the master. The joint space position is then input to a master kinematics converter 408 as indicated by arrow AB3. The master kinematics converter 408 then transforms the joint space position into an equivalent Cartesian space position. This is optionally performed by a kinematics algorithm including a Jacobian transformation matrix, inverse Jacobian, or the like. The equivalent Cartesian space position is then input to a bilateral controller 410 as indicated by arrow AB4.


Position comparison and force calculation may, in general, be performed using a forward kinematics algorithm which may include a Jacobian matrix. The forward kinematics algorithm generally makes use of a reference location, which is typically selected as the location of the surgeon's eyes. Appropriate calibration or appropriately placed sensors on the master control station can provide this reference information. Additionally, the forward kinematics algorithm will generally make use of information concerning the lengths and angular offsets of the linkage of the master. More specifically, the Cartesian position represents, for example, the distance of the input handle from, and the orientation of the input handle relative to, the location of the surgeon's eyes. Hence, the equivalent Cartesian space position is input into bilateral controller 410 as indicated by AB4.


In a process similar to the calculations described above, the slave position is also generally observed using joint encoders of the slave 416. In an exemplary embodiment, joint encoder signals read from the slave 416 are provided to a slave controller 414, as indicated by BA2, which converts the signals to a joint space position corresponding to the initial position of the slave 416. The joint space position is then input to a slave kinematics converter 412 as indicated by arrow BA3. The slave kinematics converter 412 then transforms the joint space position into an equivalent Cartesian space position.


In this case, the forward kinematics algorithm used by the slave kinematics converter 412 is preferably provided with the referenced location of a tip of a stereoscopic endoscope capturing images of the surgery site to be viewed on the surgeon display. Additionally, through the use of sensors, design specifications, and/or appropriate calibration, this kinematics algorithm incorporates information regarding the lengths, offsets, angles, etc., describing the linkage structure of the slave cart 120, and set-up joints for the slave 416 (i.e., joints used to initially position the slave that are subsequently locked during the procedure) so that the slave Cartesian position transferred to the bilateral controller 410 is measured and/or defined relative to the tip of the stereoscopic endoscope.


At bilateral controller 410, the new position of the master in Cartesian space relative to the surgeon's eyes is compared with the initial position of the tip of the end effector connected at the distal end of the slave 416 in Cartesian space relative to the tip of the stereoscopic endoscope.


Advantageously, the comparison of these relative relationships occurring in the bilateral controller 410 can account for differences in scale between the master input device space in which the master input device 404 is moved as compared with the surgical workspace in which the end effectors on the distal end of the slave robotic mechanism 416 move. Similarly, the comparison may account for possible fixed offsets, should the initial master and slave positions not correspond.


Since the master has moved to a new position, a comparison by the bilateral controller 410 of its corresponding position in Cartesian space with the Cartesian space position of the slave corresponding to its initial position yields a deviation and a new slave position in Cartesian space. This position is then input to the slave kinematics converter 412 as indicated by arrow AB5, which computes the equivalent joint space position commands.


These commands are then input to the slave controller 414 as indicated by arrow AB6. Necessary joint torques are computed by the slave controller 414 to move the slave to its new position. These computations are typically performed using a proportional integral derivative (P.I.D.) type controller. The slave controller 414 then computes equivalent motor currents for these joint torque values, and drives electrical motors on the slave 416 with these currents as indicated by arrow AB7. The slave 416 is then caused to be driven to the new slave position which corresponds to the new master position.


The control steps involved in the master/slave control system 400 as explained above are typically carried out at about 1300 cycles per second or faster. It will be appreciated that although reference is made to an initial position and new position of the master, these positions are typically incremental stages of a master control movement. Thus, the slave is continually tracking incremental new positions of the master.


The master/slave control system 400 also makes provision for force feedback. Thus, should the slave 416 (i.e., its end effector) be subjected to an environmental force at the surgical site, e.g., in the case where the end effector pushes against tissue, or the like, such a force is fed back to the master 404 so that the surgeon may feel it. Accordingly, when the slave 416 is tracking movement of the master 404 as described above and the slave 416 pushes against an object at the surgical site resulting in an equal pushing force against the slave 416, which urges the slave 416 to move to another position, similar steps as described above in the forward or control path take place in the feedback path.


The surgical environment is indicated at 418 in FIG. 4. In the case where an environmental force is applied on the slave 416, such a force causes displacement of the end effector. This displacement is sensed by the encoders on the slave 416 which generate signals that are input to the slave controller 414 as indicated by arrow BA2. The slave controller 414 computes a position in joint space corresponding to the encoder signals, and provides the position to the slave kinematics converter 412, as indicated by arrow BA3.


The slave kinematics converter 412 computes a Cartesian space position corresponding to the joint space position, and provides the Cartesian space position to the bilateral controller 410, as indicated by arrow BA4. The bilateral controller 410 compares the Cartesian space position of the slave with a Cartesian space position of the master to generate a positional deviation in Cartesian space, and computes a force value corresponding to that positional deviation that would be required to move the master 404 into a position in Cartesian space which corresponds with the slave position in Cartesian space. The force value is then provided to the master kinematics converter 408, as indicated by arrow BA5.


The master kinematics converter 408 calculates from the force value received from the bilateral controller 410, corresponding torque values for the joint motors of the master 404. This is typically performed by a Jacobian Transpose function in the master kinematics converter 408. The torque values are then provided to the master controller 406, as indicated by arrow BA6. The master controller 406, then determines master electric motor currents corresponding to the torque values, and drives the electric motors on the master 404 with these currents, as indicated by arrow BA7. The master 404 is thus caused to move to a position corresponding to the slave position.


Although the feedback has been described with respect to a new position to which the master 404 is being driven to track the slave 416, it is to be appreciated that the surgeon is gripping the master 404 so that the master 404 does not necessarily move. The surgeon however feels a force resulting from feedback torques on the master 404 which he counters because he is holding onto the master 404.


In performing collaborative minimally invasive surgical procedures or training in such procedures, it is useful at times for the lead or mentor surgeon to selectively associate certain master input devices with certain slave robotic mechanisms so that different surgeons may control different surgery-related devices in a collaborative effort or so that selected trainees may practice or experience a minimally invasive surgical procedure under the guidance or control of the mentor surgeon. Some examples of such selective master/slave associations are illustrated in FIGS. 5-9, wherein each master depicted therein includes the master manipulator 404 and master processing 420 of FIG. 4 and each slave depicted therein includes the slave manipulator 416 and slave processing 430 of FIG. 4.


In FIG. 5, an exclusive operation master/slave association is shown in which master 501 has exclusive control over slave 502 (and its attached surgery-related device), and master 511 has exclusive control over slave 512 (and its attached surgery-related device). In this configuration, the masters, 501 and 511, may be controlled by the right and left hands of a surgeon while performing a minimally invasive surgical procedure, or they may be controlled by different surgeons in a collaborative minimally invasive surgical procedure. The master/slave control system 400 may be used for each associated master/slave pair so that lines 503 and 513 (master to slave direction) correspond to its forward path AB4 line and lines 504 and 514 (slave to master direction) correspond to its feedback path BA5 line.


In FIG. 6, a unilateral control master/slave association is shown in which master 601 has exclusive control over slave 602 (and its attached surgery-related device), but input and reflected force (or position) values are provided to the master 611 as well as the master 601. In this configuration, although the master 611 cannot control the slave 602, it tracks the master 601 so that a surgeon holding the master input device of master 611 can feel and experience movement of the master input device of master 601 as it is being manipulated by another surgeon. Thus, this sort of configuration may be useful in training surgeons by allowing them to experience the movement of the master input device of the master 601 as it is being manipulated by a mentor surgeon during a minimally invasive surgical procedure, while viewing the surgical site in their respective displays and communicating with the mentor surgeon using their respective headsets.


In FIG. 7, a modified version of the unilateral control master/slave association is shown. In this configuration, not only does the surgeon holding the master input device of master 711 experience the movement of (and forces exerted against) the master input device of the master 701 as it is being manipulated by another surgeon during a minimally invasive surgical procedure, the surgeon associated with master 711 can also “nudge” the master input device of the master 701 by manipulating his/her master input device since a force value corresponding to such nudging is provided back to the master 701, as indicated by the arrow 722. This “nudging” master/slave configuration is useful for training surgeons, because it allows a trainee surgeon to practice by performing the surgical procedure by manipulating the slave 702 (and its attached surgery-related device) using the master input device of his/her master 701, while the mentor surgeon monitors such manipulation by viewing the surgical site on his/her display while feeling the movement of the trainee surgeon's master input device through input and feedback forces, respectively indicated by arrows 721 and 704. If the mentor surgeon thinks that the trainee surgeon should modify his/her operation of his/her master input device, the mentor surgeon can nudge the trainee surgeon's master input device accordingly, while at the same time, communicating such recommendation verbally to the trainee surgeon using a shared audio system through their respective headsets.


In FIG. 8, a unilateral, shared master/slave association, which is a variant of the nudging configuration of FIG. 7, is shown in which either (or both) masters 801 and 811 may control slave 802. In this configuration, not only does the surgeon holding the master input device of master 811 experience the movement of (and forces exerted against) the master input device of the master 801 as it is being manipulated by another surgeon during a minimally invasive surgical procedure, the surgeon associated with master 811 can also control the slave 802 if desired, as indicated by the arrow 813. This “override” master/slave configuration is useful for training surgeons, because it allows a trainee surgeon to practice by performing the surgical procedure by manipulating the slave 802 (and its attached surgery-related device) using the master input device of his/her master 801, while the mentor surgeon monitors such manipulation by viewing the surgical site on his/her display while feeling the movement of the trainee surgeon's master input device through input and feedback forces, respectively indicated by arrows 821 and 804. If the mentor surgeon finds it necessary to assume control of the slave 802 to avoid injury to a patient, the mentor surgeon can assert such control accordingly, while at the same time, communicating that he/she is taking over control verbally to the trainee surgeon through a shared audio system.


In FIG. 9, a bilateral master/slave association is shown in which masters, 901 and 912, and slaves, 902 and 912, all move in tandem, tracking each other's movements. In this configuration, the slave 912 (and its attached surgery-related device) may be controlled by a surgeon using the master 901, while another surgeon experiences its movement by loosely holding the master input device for the other master 911. The slave 902 in this case is generally non-operative in the sense that it is not directly participating in the minimally invasive surgical procedure. In particular, the slave 902 either may not have the distal end of its slave robotic mechanism inserted in the patient so that its robotic arm moves, but does not result in any action taking place in the surgical site, or the slave 902 may only include a computer model of the linkages, joints, and joint motors of its slave robotic mechanism, rather than the actual slave robotic mechanism.


However, the slave 902 does move in tandem with the slave 912 (in actuality or through simulation) as the surgeon manipulating the master input device of the master 901 causes the slave 912 to move, because a force (or position) value corresponding to such manipulation is provided to the master 911, as indicated by arrow 921, and the master 911 controls the slave 902 to move accordingly, as indicated by arrow 913. Any forces asserted against the surgery-related device attached to the distal end of the slave robotic mechanism of the slave 912 are then fed back to the master input device of the master 911, as indicated by the arrow 914.


Note that the surgeon associated with the master 911 can effectively “nudge” the master 901 by manipulating the master input device of the master 911. Therefore, the bilateral master/slave association shown in FIG. 9 can also be used in the training of surgeons in a similar manner as the “nudging” and unilateral, shared master/slave associations respectively shown in FIGS. 7 and 8.



FIG. 10 illustrates a block diagram of components of the multi-user medical robotic system for selective association of master manipulators (also referred to as “master input devices”), 404 and 1004, with slave manipulators (also referred to as “slave robotic mechanisms”), 416 and 1016. Although only two master manipulators and two slave manipulators are shown in this example, it is to be appreciated that any number of master manipulators may be associated with any number of slave manipulators in the system, limited only by master control station port availability, memory capacity, and processing capability/requirements.


The master processing unit 420 includes the master controller 406 and the master kinematics converter 408 and generally operates as described in reference to FIG. 4, and the master processing unit 1020 is similarly configured and functionally equivalent to the master processing unit 420. The slave processing unit 430 includes the slave controller 414, slave kinematics converter 412, and the bilateral controller 410 and generally operates as described in reference to FIG. 4, and the slave processing unit 1030 is similarly configured and functionally equivalent to the slave processing unit 430.


An association module 1001 includes a shared command filter 1002 and a routing table 1003 for selectively associating master manipulators, 404 and 1004, with slave manipulators, 416 and 1016. In brief, the routing table 1003 indicates which inputs are routed to which outputs of the association module 1001, and the shared command filter 1002 determines how shared command of a slave manipulator by two master manipulators is handled. One or more switch commands 1005 are provided to the association module 1001 as a means for a user to alter parameters of the shared command filter 1002 or values in the routing table 1003 so as to change or switch the selected associations between master and slave manipulators. The current parameters of the shared command filter 1002 and/or values in the routing table 1003 may be indicated to the user using a plurality of icons on a graphical user interface of an auxiliary display or the user's master control station display, or they may be indicated by a plurality of light-emitting-diodes or other such indicators on or adjacent to the user's master control station, or they may be indicated by any other display mechanism.


The switch command(s) 1005 may be generated by any one or combination of: the user interacting with one or more buttons on the master input devices, the user interacting with one or more foot pedals associated with the user's master control station, the user providing recognizable voice commands to a voice recognition (i.e., word recognition) and processing system, the user interacting with one or more menus displayed on the user's master control station display, or the user interacting with any other conventional input mechanism of such sort.


In a preferred embodiment compatible with the multi-user medical robotic system of FIG. 1, master processing 420 is performed as executable program code on a processor associated with the master control station of the master manipulator 404, and master processing 1020 is also performed as executable program code on a processor associated with the master control station of the master manipulator 1004. Both master control stations in this case may be Trainee master control stations, such as master control stations 131 and 161 of FIG. 1, or one of the master control stations may be the Mentor master control station 101 and the other, a Trainee master control station.


The slave processing 430, the slave processing 1030, and the association module 1001 are preferably included as executable program or table code on the processor 220 associated with the Mentor master control station 101. The switch command(s) 1005 in this case originate from action taken by the Mentor Surgeon (M) operating the Mentor master control station 101.


The Mentor master control station 101 preferably performs the slave processing for all slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123, because it communicates directly with the slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123, whereas the Trainee master control stations only communicate indirectly with the slave robotic mechanisms 121˜123 through the Mentor master control station 101. On the other hand, the Trainee master control stations preferably perform the master processing for their respective master input devices, so that such processing may be performed in parallel with the slave processing (while maintaining time synchronization) while off-loading these processing requirements from the processor of the Mentor master control station 101. Thus, this distribution of processing makes efficient use of processor resources and minimizes processing delay.


One feature of the present invention is the capability to selectively associate on-the-fly both command and feedback paths between the master and slave manipulators. For example, the exclusive operation master/slave association shown in FIG. 5 may be altered on-the-fly (i.e., during a minimally invasive surgical procedure rather than at set-up) to the bilateral master/slave association shown in FIG. 9 by re-associating the command path of the master 501 from the slave 502 to the slave 512 while maintaining the feedback path of the slave 502 to the master 501, re-associating the command path of the master 511 from the slave 512 to the slave 502 while maintaining the feedback path of the slave 512 to the master 511, providing a value indicating the input force applied against the master 501 to the master 511, and providing a value indicating the input force applied against the master 511 to the master 501.



FIG. 11 illustrates an example of input/output ports for the association module 1001, in which input ports A˜F are shown on the left side of the association module 1001 for convenience, and output ports U˜Z are shown on the right side of the association module 1001 for convenience.


Input port A is assigned to the output of the master processing 420 which is provided on line 1014 of FIG. 10, input port B is assigned to the surgeon force input to the master manipulator 404 which is provided on line 1042 of FIG. 10, input port C is assigned to surgeon force input to the master manipulator 1004 which is provided on line 1052 of FIG. 10, input port D is assigned to the output of the master processing 1020 which is provided on line 1054 of FIG. 10, input port E is assigned to the output of the slave processing 430 which is provided on line 1035 of FIG. 10, and input port F is assigned to output of the slave processing 1030 which is provided on line 1075 of FIG. 10.


Output port U is assigned to the input to the slave processing 430 which is provided on line 1024 of FIG. 10, output port V is assigned to the input force to the master manipulator 1004 which is provided on line 1053 of FIG. 10, output port W is assigned to the input force to the master manipulator 404 which is provided on line 1042 of FIG. 10, output port X is assigned to the input to the slave processing 1030 which is provided on line 1064 of FIG. 10, output port Y is assigned to the feedback to the master processing 420 which is provided on line 1045 of FIG. 10, and output port Z is assigned to the feedback to the master processing 1020 which is provided on line 1085 of FIG. 10.



FIG. 12 illustrates a routing table corresponding to the master/slave association shown in FIG. 9, and FIG. 13 illustrates a routing table corresponding to the master/slave association shown in FIG. 8. Referring to FIG. 12, input port A is connected to output port X (i.e., line 1014 is coupled to line 1064 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 903 of FIG. 9), input port B is coupled to output port V (i.e., line 1042 is coupled to line 1053 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 921 of FIG. 9), input port C is connected to output port W (i.e., line 1052 is coupled to line 1043 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 922 in FIG. 9), input port D is connected to output port U (i.e., line 1054 is coupled to line 1024 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 913 in FIG. 9), input port E is connected to output port Y (i.e., line 1035 is coupled to line 1045 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 904 in FIG. 9), and input port F is connected to output port Z (i.e., line 1075 is coupled to line 1083 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 914 in FIG. 9).


If the Mentor Surgeon (M) is operating the master 901 and desires at this point to change the master/slave association from that of FIG. 9 to that of FIG. 8, he/she provides appropriate switch command(s) 1005 by, for example, depressing a button on his/her right-hand master input device corresponding to the master 901 so that the command output of the master 901 is provided to the slave 902 instead of the slave 912, and selecting menu entries on his/her display to stop providing commands to or receiving force feedback from the slave 912, to provide the force feedback from the slave 902 to the master 911 (as well as continuing to do so to the master 901), and stop providing the input force exerted on the master input device of the master 911 to the master 901. Alternatively, as previously described, these switches may be done using foot pedals, voice actuation, or any combination of buttons, foot pedals, voice, display menu, or other actuation devices controllable by the Mentor Surgeon (M).



FIG. 13 illustrates the routing table resulting from the above described switch command(s) 1005 that places the master/slave association into the configuration shown in FIG. 8. In this case, input port A is connected to output port U (i.e., line 1014 is coupled to line 1024 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 803 of FIG. 8), input port B is coupled to output port V (i.e., line 1042 is coupled to line 1053 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 821 of FIG. 8), input port C is not connected to any output port, input port D is connected to output port U (i.e., line 1054 is coupled to line 1024 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 813 in FIG. 8), input port E is connected to output ports Y and Z (i.e., line 1035 is coupled to line 1045 and 1085 of FIG. 10, which corresponds to line 804 in FIG. 8), and input port F is not connected to any output port.


Referring back to FIG. 8 now, it is noted that the slave 802 has two command inputs, one from the master 801 and another from the master 811. This causes a control contention issue which may be resolved by the shared command filter 1002 of the association module 1001 of FIG. 10.



FIGS. 14 and 15 illustrate block diagrams for alternative embodiments of the shared command filter 1002. As shown in FIG. 14, the shared command filter 1002 takes the form of a simple arbiter, selecting either a first command input CMD1 or a second command input CMD2, depending upon a priority input which is provided as a switch command 1005 to the association module 1001 by the Mentor Surgeon (M) or programmed into or provided as a parameter value for its process code. As shown in FIG. 15, the shared command filter 1002 may also take the form of a weighter or weighting function that weights command inputs CMD1 and CMD2, and combines the weighted values to determine a shared command value to be provided to the slave. In this case, the respective weights of the first and second command inputs, CMD1 and CMD2, depend on a weight input which is provided as a switch command 1005 to the association module 1001 by the Mentor Surgeon (M), or programmed into or provided as parameter values for its process code.


In the foregoing description of the switching process from one master/slave association to another, it has been assumed that such switching occurs instantaneously. However, to avoid undesirable transient movement of the slave robotic mechanisms, it may be desirable in certain circumstances to phase-in the switching process (i.e., gradually reducing the strength of the signal being switched out while gradually increasing the strength of the signal being switched in), or using a clutch mechanism that disengages both signals and only engages the new signal, for example, after making sure that the position of the slave robotic mechanism being commanded by the new signal matches that of the old signal so that a sudden movement will not occur as a result of the change.


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

Claims
  • 1. A multi-user medical robotic system for training in minimally invasive surgical procedures, comprising: mentor and trainee master input devices respectively manipulatable by a mentor and a trainee;a first slave robotic mechanism;a switch mechanism operable by the mentor for selectively associating the first slave robotic mechanism with the mentor master input device and the trainee master input device so that either or both the mentor or the trainee may control operation of the first slave robotic mechanism to perform a minimally invasive surgical procedure; anda mentor microphone proximate to the mentor and a trainee hearing device proximate to the trainee so that mentor may speak to the trainee while the mentor is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 2. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein forces associated with the first slave robotic mechanism are reflected back to the trainee master input device when the first slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the mentor master input device so that the trainee master input device tracks movement of the mentor master input device.
  • 3. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 2, further comprising: first and second headsets respectively worn by the mentor and the trainee so that they may communicate with each while the mentor is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 4. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 2, further comprising: first and second displays respectively viewable by the mentor and the trainee so that they may each view the surgical site while the mentor is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 5. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein forces associated with the first slave robotic mechanism are reflected back to the mentor master input device when the first slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the trainee master input device so that the mentor master input device tracks movement of the trainee master input device.
  • 6. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 5, further comprising: a trainee microphone proximate to the trainee and a mentor hearing device proximate to the mentor so that trainee may speak to the mentor while the trainee is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 7. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 5, further comprising: first and second headsets respectively worn by the mentor and the trainee so that they may communicate with each while the trainee is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 8. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 5, further comprising: first and second displays respectively viewable by the mentor and the trainee so that they may each view the surgical site while the trainee is performing the minimally invasive surgical procedure.
  • 9. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising: a second slave robotic mechanism, wherein the second slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the mentor master input device when the first slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the trainee master input device, and the second slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the trainee master input device when the first slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the mentor master input device.
  • 10. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 9, wherein the first slave robotic mechanism is selectively associated with the mentor master input device, and first forces associated with the first slave robotic mechanism are reflected back to the trainee master input device so that the first forces may be sensed by the trainee.
  • 11. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 10, wherein second forces associated with the second slave robotic mechanism are reflected back to the mentor master input device so that they may be sensed by the mentor.
  • 12. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 11, wherein the second slave robotic mechanism includes at least one motor responding to movement of the mentor master input to cause movement of the second slave robotic mechanism in a corresponding fashion.
  • 13. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 11, wherein the second slave robotic mechanism includes a computer model for simulating at least one motor responding to movement of the mentor master input to simulate movement of the second slave robotic mechanism in a corresponding fashion.
  • 14. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the switch mechanism is a button pressable by a thumb of the first operator.
  • 15. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the switch mechanism is a foot pedal pressable by a foot of the first operator.
  • 16. The multi-user medical robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the switch mechanism is voice activated by the first operator.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/965,581, filed Aug. 13, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,271,798, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/319,012, filed Dec. 27, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,094 B2, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/725,770, filed Oct. 12, 2005, each of which is incorporated herein by this reference. U.S. application Ser. No. 11/319,012, filed Dec. 27, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,094 B2, is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/025,766, filed Dec. 28, 2004, now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/214,286, filed Aug. 6, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,858,003, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/436,982, filed Nov. 9, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,468,265, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,359, filed Nov. 20, 1998, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,301, filed Nov. 20, 1998, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,303, filed Nov. 20, 1998, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/150,145, filed Aug. 20, 1999, and which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/433,120, filed Nov. 3, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,659,939, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/399,457, filed Sep. 17, 1999, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/374,643, filed Aug. 16, 1999, now abandoned, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/116,891, filed Jan. 22, 1999, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/116,842, filed Jan. 22, 1999, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/109,359, filed Nov. 20, 1998, each of which is incorporated herein by this reference. U.S. application Ser. No. 11/319,012, filed Dec. 27, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,094 B2, is also a continuation-in-part application of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/948,853, filed Sep. 23, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,413,565, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/246,236, filed Sep. 17, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,951,535, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/051,796, filed Jan. 16, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,852,107, each of which is incorporated herein by this reference.

US Referenced Citations (457)
Number Name Date Kind
977825 George Dec 1910 A
1327577 Turner Jan 1920 A
3171549 Orloff Mar 1965 A
3280991 Melton et al. Oct 1966 A
3497668 Hirsch Feb 1970 A
3628535 Ostrowsky et al. Dec 1971 A
3698791 Walchle et al. Oct 1972 A
3880166 Fogarty Apr 1975 A
3910280 Talonn Oct 1975 A
3961921 Heiman, I et al. Jun 1976 A
3993076 Fogarty Nov 1976 A
4041942 Dougan et al. Aug 1977 A
4058001 Waxman Nov 1977 A
4062455 Flatau Dec 1977 A
4078568 Etes et al. Mar 1978 A
4101961 Fletcher et al. Jul 1978 A
4128880 Cray, Jr. Dec 1978 A
4182311 Seppi et al. Jan 1980 A
4221997 Flemming Sep 1980 A
4337045 Jones et al. Jun 1982 A
4349837 Hinds Sep 1982 A
4367998 Causer Jan 1983 A
4401852 Noso et al. Aug 1983 A
4456961 Price et al. Jun 1984 A
4460302 Moreau et al. Jul 1984 A
4474174 Petruzzi Oct 1984 A
4491135 Klein Jan 1985 A
4503854 Jako Mar 1985 A
4511305 Kawai et al. Apr 1985 A
4517963 Michel May 1985 A
4523884 Clement et al. Jun 1985 A
4586398 Yindra May 1986 A
4598725 Brewer Jul 1986 A
4604016 Joyce Aug 1986 A
4614499 Arseneault et al. Sep 1986 A
4616637 Caspari et al. Oct 1986 A
4624011 Watanabe et al. Nov 1986 A
4633389 Tanaka et al. Dec 1986 A
4635292 Mori et al. Jan 1987 A
4635479 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Jan 1987 A
4641292 Tunnell et al. Feb 1987 A
4649930 Groch et al. Mar 1987 A
4655257 Iwashita Apr 1987 A
4655673 Hawkes Apr 1987 A
4672963 Barken Jun 1987 A
4676243 Clayman Jun 1987 A
4728974 Nio et al. Mar 1988 A
4750636 Wortham Jun 1988 A
4762455 Coughlan et al. Aug 1988 A
4764944 Finlayson Aug 1988 A
4791934 Brunnett Dec 1988 A
4791940 Hirschfeld et al. Dec 1988 A
4794912 Lia Jan 1989 A
4799779 Mesmer Jan 1989 A
4800614 Kopco et al. Jan 1989 A
4815006 Andersson et al. Mar 1989 A
4815450 Patel Mar 1989 A
4817592 Auchinleck et al. Apr 1989 A
4819978 Scheinman et al. Apr 1989 A
4826392 Hayati May 1989 A
4837734 Ichikawa et al. Jun 1989 A
4852083 Niehaus et al. Jul 1989 A
4853874 Iwamoto et al. Aug 1989 A
4854301 Nakajima Aug 1989 A
4860215 Seraji Aug 1989 A
4863133 Bonnell Sep 1989 A
4883400 Kuban et al. Nov 1989 A
4891767 Rzasa et al. Jan 1990 A
4930494 Takehana et al. Jun 1990 A
4942538 Yuan et al. Jul 1990 A
4942539 McGee et al. Jul 1990 A
4945479 Rusterholz et al. Jul 1990 A
4949717 Shaw Aug 1990 A
4954952 Ubhayakar et al. Sep 1990 A
4965417 Massie Oct 1990 A
4969709 Sogawa et al. Nov 1990 A
4969890 Sugita et al. Nov 1990 A
4979933 Runge Dec 1990 A
4979949 Matsen, III Dec 1990 A
4980626 Hess et al. Dec 1990 A
4989253 Liang et al. Jan 1991 A
4996975 Nakamura Mar 1991 A
5019968 Wang et al. May 1991 A
5020001 Yamamoto et al. May 1991 A
5036463 Abela et al. Jul 1991 A
5046022 Conway et al. Sep 1991 A
5046375 Salisbury, Jr. Sep 1991 A
5053687 Merlet Oct 1991 A
5053975 Tsuchihashi et al. Oct 1991 A
5056031 Nakano et al. Oct 1991 A
5065741 Uchiyama et al. Nov 1991 A
5078140 Kwoh Jan 1992 A
5086401 Glassman et al. Feb 1992 A
5091656 Gahn Feb 1992 A
5097829 Quisenberry Mar 1992 A
5097839 Allen Mar 1992 A
5098426 Sklar et al. Mar 1992 A
5105367 Tsuchihashi et al. Apr 1992 A
5109499 Inagami et al. Apr 1992 A
5119817 Allen Jun 1992 A
5123095 Papadopoulos et al. Jun 1992 A
5131105 Harrawood et al. Jul 1992 A
5142930 Allen et al. Sep 1992 A
5145227 Monford, Jr. Sep 1992 A
5166513 Keenan et al. Nov 1992 A
5175694 Amato Dec 1992 A
5182641 Diner et al. Jan 1993 A
5184319 Kramer Feb 1993 A
5184601 Putman Feb 1993 A
5186232 Zahner Feb 1993 A
5187574 Kosemura et al. Feb 1993 A
5193963 McAffee et al. Mar 1993 A
5196688 Hesse et al. Mar 1993 A
5198894 Hicks Mar 1993 A
5201325 McEwen et al. Apr 1993 A
5201743 Haber et al. Apr 1993 A
5204942 Otera Apr 1993 A
5210911 Brown et al. May 1993 A
5213141 Dorman May 1993 A
5217003 Wilk Jun 1993 A
5217453 Wilk Jun 1993 A
5221283 Chang Jun 1993 A
5222499 Allen et al. Jun 1993 A
5228429 Hatano Jul 1993 A
5230338 Allen et al. Jul 1993 A
5230623 Guthrie et al. Jul 1993 A
5231693 Backes et al. Jul 1993 A
5233516 Le Roux Aug 1993 A
5236432 Matsen, III et al. Aug 1993 A
5239883 Rosheim Aug 1993 A
5239981 Anapliotis Aug 1993 A
5240011 Assa Aug 1993 A
5251127 Raab Oct 1993 A
5251128 Crawford Oct 1993 A
5253289 Tanaka Oct 1993 A
5257999 Slanetz, Jr. Nov 1993 A
5271384 McEwen et al. Dec 1993 A
5274500 Dunn Dec 1993 A
5275608 Forman et al. Jan 1994 A
5279309 Taylor et al. Jan 1994 A
5282806 Haber et al. Feb 1994 A
5282826 Quadri Feb 1994 A
5284130 Ratliff Feb 1994 A
5289273 Lang Feb 1994 A
5289365 Caldwell et al. Feb 1994 A
5297034 Weinstein Mar 1994 A
5299288 Glassman et al. Mar 1994 A
5300926 Stoeckl Apr 1994 A
5301657 Lafferty et al. Apr 1994 A
5303148 Mattson et al. Apr 1994 A
5304149 Morigi Apr 1994 A
5304185 Taylor Apr 1994 A
5305149 Newman et al. Apr 1994 A
5305203 Raab Apr 1994 A
5305427 Nagata Apr 1994 A
5309717 Minch May 1994 A
5313306 Kuban et al. May 1994 A
5320630 Ahmed Jun 1994 A
5321353 Furness Jun 1994 A
5337732 Grundfest et al. Aug 1994 A
5339799 Kami et al. Aug 1994 A
5343385 Joskowicz et al. Aug 1994 A
5343391 Mushabac Aug 1994 A
5345538 Narayannan et al. Sep 1994 A
5357962 Green Oct 1994 A
5368015 Wilk Nov 1994 A
5368428 Hussey et al. Nov 1994 A
5371536 Yamaguchi Dec 1994 A
5382885 Salcudean et al. Jan 1995 A
5388987 Badoz et al. Feb 1995 A
5395369 McBrayer et al. Mar 1995 A
5397323 Taylor et al. Mar 1995 A
5402801 Taylor Apr 1995 A
5403319 Matsen, III et al. Apr 1995 A
5403332 Christoudias Apr 1995 A
5408409 Glassman et al. Apr 1995 A
5410638 Colgate et al. Apr 1995 A
5410944 Cushman May 1995 A
5413092 Williams, III et al. May 1995 A
5417210 Funda et al. May 1995 A
5417701 Holmes May 1995 A
5422521 Neer et al. Jun 1995 A
5423648 Akeel et al. Jun 1995 A
5429142 Szabo et al. Jul 1995 A
5431645 Smith et al. Jul 1995 A
5434457 Josephs et al. Jul 1995 A
5441042 Putman Aug 1995 A
5442728 Kaufman et al. Aug 1995 A
5443484 Kirsch et al. Aug 1995 A
5445166 Taylor Aug 1995 A
5451852 Gusakov Sep 1995 A
5451924 Massimino et al. Sep 1995 A
5452733 Sterman et al. Sep 1995 A
5453686 Anderson Sep 1995 A
5454827 Aust et al. Oct 1995 A
5455766 Scheller et al. Oct 1995 A
5458547 Teraoka et al. Oct 1995 A
5458574 Machold et al. Oct 1995 A
5464410 Skeens et al. Nov 1995 A
5467223 Cleveland, Jr. et al. Nov 1995 A
5474571 Lang Dec 1995 A
5476010 Fleming et al. Dec 1995 A
5478351 Meade et al. Dec 1995 A
5489292 Tovey et al. Feb 1996 A
5490117 Oda et al. Feb 1996 A
5490843 Hildwein et al. Feb 1996 A
5506912 Nagasaki et al. Apr 1996 A
5512919 Araki Apr 1996 A
5514157 Nicholas et al. May 1996 A
5515478 Wang May 1996 A
5524180 Wang et al. Jun 1996 A
5531520 Grimson et al. Jul 1996 A
5544654 Murphy et al. Aug 1996 A
5553198 Wang et al. Sep 1996 A
5553609 Chen Sep 1996 A
5562503 Ellman et al. Oct 1996 A
5571110 Matsen, III Nov 1996 A
5572999 Funda et al. Nov 1996 A
5586564 Barrett et al. Dec 1996 A
5588432 Crowley Dec 1996 A
5597146 Putman Jan 1997 A
5608847 Pryor Mar 1997 A
5609560 Ichikawa et al. Mar 1997 A
5613937 Garrison et al. Mar 1997 A
5626595 Sklar et al. May 1997 A
5629594 Jacobus et al. May 1997 A
5630431 Taylor May 1997 A
5631973 Green May 1997 A
5636259 Khutoryansky et al. Jun 1997 A
5647361 Damadian Jul 1997 A
5649956 Jensen et al. Jul 1997 A
5657429 Wang et al. Aug 1997 A
5658250 Blomquist et al. Aug 1997 A
5676673 Ferre et al. Oct 1997 A
5693071 Gorecki et al. Dec 1997 A
5695500 Taylor et al. Dec 1997 A
5696574 Schwaegerle Dec 1997 A
5696837 Green Dec 1997 A
5697939 Kubota et al. Dec 1997 A
5704791 Gillio Jan 1998 A
5715729 Toyama et al. Feb 1998 A
5715836 Kliegis et al. Feb 1998 A
5718038 Takiar et al. Feb 1998 A
5727569 Benetti et al. Mar 1998 A
5735290 Sterman et al. Apr 1998 A
5737500 Seraji et al. Apr 1998 A
5737506 McKenna et al. Apr 1998 A
5737711 Abe Apr 1998 A
5738649 Macoviak Apr 1998 A
5740699 Ballantyne et al. Apr 1998 A
5740802 Nafis et al. Apr 1998 A
5743884 Hasson et al. Apr 1998 A
5744363 Mukherjee et al. Apr 1998 A
5748767 Raab May 1998 A
5749362 Funda et al. May 1998 A
5749892 Vierra et al. May 1998 A
5754741 Wang et al. May 1998 A
5762458 Wang et al. Jun 1998 A
5765565 Adair Jun 1998 A
5766126 Anderson Jun 1998 A
5769640 Jacobus et al. Jun 1998 A
5776126 Wilk et al. Jul 1998 A
5778889 Jascomb Jul 1998 A
5779623 Bonnell Jul 1998 A
5784542 Ohm et al. Jul 1998 A
5791908 Gillio Aug 1998 A
5792045 Adair Aug 1998 A
5792135 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5792178 Welch et al. Aug 1998 A
5797900 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5800179 Bailey Sep 1998 A
5800423 Jensen Sep 1998 A
5807243 Vierra et al. Sep 1998 A
5807284 Foxlin Sep 1998 A
5807377 Madhani et al. Sep 1998 A
5807378 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5807379 Lesperance, Jr. Sep 1998 A
5808665 Green Sep 1998 A
5810880 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5813813 Daum et al. Sep 1998 A
5814038 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5815640 Wang et al. Sep 1998 A
5817084 Jensen Oct 1998 A
5825862 Voit et al. Oct 1998 A
5825908 Pieper et al. Oct 1998 A
5825982 Wright et al. Oct 1998 A
5827319 Carlson et al. Oct 1998 A
5828197 Martin et al. Oct 1998 A
5828813 Ohm Oct 1998 A
5836869 Kudo et al. Nov 1998 A
5844824 Newman et al. Dec 1998 A
5855553 Tajima Jan 1999 A
5855583 Wang et al. Jan 1999 A
5859934 Green Jan 1999 A
5860420 Wiedner et al. Jan 1999 A
5860985 Anschutz Jan 1999 A
5860995 Berkelaar Jan 1999 A
5865730 Fox et al. Feb 1999 A
5867210 Rod Feb 1999 A
5876325 Mizuno Mar 1999 A
5878193 Wang et al. Mar 1999 A
5882206 Gillio Mar 1999 A
5885583 Miyazaki et al. Mar 1999 A
5887121 Funda et al. Mar 1999 A
5894843 Benetti et al. Apr 1999 A
5898599 Massie et al. Apr 1999 A
5904702 Ek et al. May 1999 A
5906630 Anderhub et al. May 1999 A
5907664 Wang et al. May 1999 A
5911036 Wright et al. Jun 1999 A
5920395 Schulz Jul 1999 A
5923770 ODonnell et al. Jul 1999 A
5931832 Jensen Aug 1999 A
5938678 Zirps et al. Aug 1999 A
5943914 Morimoto et al. Aug 1999 A
5950629 Taylor et al. Sep 1999 A
5951475 Gueziec et al. Sep 1999 A
5951587 Qureshi et al. Sep 1999 A
5954692 Smith et al. Sep 1999 A
5954731 Yoon Sep 1999 A
5957831 Adair Sep 1999 A
5957902 Teves Sep 1999 A
5971976 Wang et al. Oct 1999 A
5976122 Madhani et al. Nov 1999 A
5980782 Hershkowitz et al. Nov 1999 A
5984932 Yoon Nov 1999 A
6001108 Wang et al. Dec 1999 A
6001111 Sepetka et al. Dec 1999 A
6013027 Khan et al. Jan 2000 A
6017304 Vierra et al. Jan 2000 A
6019722 Spence et al. Feb 2000 A
6024695 Taylor et al. Feb 2000 A
6033362 Cohn Mar 2000 A
6036641 Taylor et al. Mar 2000 A
6038641 Zangenehpour Mar 2000 A
6050266 Benetti et al. Apr 2000 A
6063021 Hossain et al. May 2000 A
6080181 Jensen et al. Jun 2000 A
6102850 Wang et al. Aug 2000 A
6102854 Cartier et al. Aug 2000 A
6106511 Jensen Aug 2000 A
6113534 Koros et al. Sep 2000 A
6120433 Mizuno et al. Sep 2000 A
6132368 Cooper Oct 2000 A
6132441 Grace Oct 2000 A
6149583 Vierra et al. Nov 2000 A
6196081 Yau Mar 2001 B1
6197017 Brock et al. Mar 2001 B1
6201984 Funda et al. Mar 2001 B1
6205716 Peltz Mar 2001 B1
6206903 Ramans Mar 2001 B1
6210323 Gilhuly et al. Apr 2001 B1
6213124 Butterworth Apr 2001 B1
6223100 Green Apr 2001 B1
6226566 Funda et al. May 2001 B1
6231526 Taylor et al. May 2001 B1
6231585 Takahashi et al. May 2001 B1
6244809 Wang et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246200 Blumenkranz et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246898 Vesely et al. Jun 2001 B1
6254532 Paolitto et al. Jul 2001 B1
6259806 Green Jul 2001 B1
6270453 Sakai Aug 2001 B1
6292712 Bullen Sep 2001 B1
6307285 Delson et al. Oct 2001 B1
6309397 Julian et al. Oct 2001 B1
6312435 Wallace et al. Nov 2001 B1
6330837 Charles et al. Dec 2001 B1
6331181 Tierney et al. Dec 2001 B1
6346072 Cooper Feb 2002 B1
6346077 Taylor et al. Feb 2002 B1
6364888 Niemeyer et al. Apr 2002 B1
6368332 Salcudean et al. Apr 2002 B1
6371952 Madhani et al. Apr 2002 B1
6398726 Ramans et al. Jun 2002 B1
6402737 Tajima et al. Jun 2002 B1
6424885 Niemeyer et al. Jul 2002 B1
6436107 Wang et al. Aug 2002 B1
6459926 Nowlin et al. Oct 2002 B1
6464691 Castaneda et al. Oct 2002 B1
6468265 Evans et al. Oct 2002 B1
6470236 Ohtsuki Oct 2002 B2
6490490 Uchikubo et al. Dec 2002 B1
6496099 Wang et al. Dec 2002 B2
6522906 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Feb 2003 B1
6549926 Kalambur et al. Apr 2003 B1
6574355 Green Jun 2003 B2
6574503 Ferek-Petric Jun 2003 B2
6589164 Flaherty Jul 2003 B1
6646541 Wang Nov 2003 B1
6659939 Moll Dec 2003 B2
6699177 Wang et al. Mar 2004 B1
6699235 Wallace et al. Mar 2004 B2
6714839 Salisbury et al. Mar 2004 B2
6720988 Gere et al. Apr 2004 B1
6728599 Wang et al. Apr 2004 B2
6740028 Boone et al. May 2004 B2
6764445 Ramans et al. Jul 2004 B2
6793669 Nakamura et al. Sep 2004 B2
6799065 Niemeyer Sep 2004 B1
6817972 Snow Nov 2004 B2
6837883 Moll et al. Jan 2005 B2
6852107 Wang Feb 2005 B2
6858003 Evans et al. Feb 2005 B2
6892112 Wang May 2005 B2
6905460 Wang et al. Jun 2005 B2
6936001 Snow Aug 2005 B1
6951535 Ghodoussi Oct 2005 B2
7083571 Wang et al. Aug 2006 B2
7087049 Nowlin et al. Aug 2006 B2
7245202 Levin Jul 2007 B2
7250028 Julian et al. Jul 2007 B2
7259652 Wang et al. Aug 2007 B2
7413565 Wang et al. Aug 2008 B2
7682357 Ghodoussi et al. Mar 2010 B2
7695481 Wang et al. Apr 2010 B2
7806891 Nowlin et al. Oct 2010 B2
7865266 Moll Jan 2011 B2
7914521 Wang et al. Mar 2011 B2
RE43049 Grace Dec 2011 E
8105235 Ramans et al. Jan 2012 B2
8241306 Grace Aug 2012 B2
8292916 Grace Oct 2012 B2
8489235 Moll et al. Jul 2013 B2
8504201 Moll et al. Aug 2013 B2
8527094 Kumar Sep 2013 B2
8600551 Itkowitz et al. Dec 2013 B2
8666544 Moll et al. Mar 2014 B2
8831782 Itkowitz Sep 2014 B2
8870900 Julian et al. Oct 2014 B2
8914150 Moll Dec 2014 B2
9039681 Wang May 2015 B2
9107633 Mueller et al. Aug 2015 B2
9119654 Ramans Sep 2015 B2
9271798 Kumar et al. Mar 2016 B2
20020029095 Kosaka Mar 2002 A1
20020062435 Nemirovsky et al. May 2002 A1
20020140665 Gordon Oct 2002 A1
20030050733 Wang Mar 2003 A1
20030083648 Wang et al. May 2003 A1
20050107808 Evans et al. May 2005 A1
20050228365 Wang et al. Oct 2005 A1
20060166681 Lohbihler Jul 2006 A1
20060178559 Kumar Aug 2006 A1
20080046122 Manzo et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080228196 Wang et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080312668 Grace Dec 2008 A1
20090036902 DiMaio et al. Feb 2009 A1
20100225209 Goldberg et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100228249 Mohr et al. Sep 2010 A1
20110112571 Grace May 2011 A1
20120029694 Muller Feb 2012 A1
20130023899 Green Jan 2013 A1
20130331859 Kumar Dec 2013 A1
20140195048 Moll Jul 2014 A1
20150248847 Wang et al. Sep 2015 A1
20160166345 Kumar et al. Jun 2016 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (40)
Number Date Country
9204118 May 1992 DE
4310842 Jan 1996 DE
0239409 Sep 1987 EP
0424687 May 1991 EP
0494343 Jul 1992 EP
494943 Aug 1995 EP
0732082 Sep 1996 EP
0776738 Apr 2002 EP
2016908 Jan 2009 EP
1131004 Oct 2009 EP
2138105 Dec 2009 EP
2298222 Mar 2011 EP
H11262492 Sep 1999 JP
WO-9104711 Apr 1991 WO
WO-9220295 Nov 1992 WO
WO-9313916 Jul 1993 WO
WO-9418881 Sep 1994 WO
WO-9426167 Nov 1994 WO
WO-9501757 Jan 1995 WO
WO-9715240 May 1997 WO
WO-9729690 Aug 1997 WO
WO-9803954 Jan 1998 WO
WO-9817182 Apr 1998 WO
WO-9825666 Jun 1998 WO
WO-9848704 Nov 1998 WO
WO-9909892 Mar 1999 WO
WO-9916367 Apr 1999 WO
WO-9950721 Oct 1999 WO
WO-0007503 Feb 2000 WO
WO-0015119 Mar 2000 WO
WO-0030548 Jun 2000 WO
WO-0030551 Jun 2000 WO
WO-0033726 Jun 2000 WO
WO-0015119 Aug 2000 WO
WO-0030548 Sep 2000 WO
WO-0059384 Oct 2000 WO
WO-0030551 Nov 2000 WO
WO-0015119 May 2001 WO
WO-0030548 Jul 2001 WO
WO-0030548 Aug 2002 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (132)
Entry
Abstract of a presentation “3-D Vision Technology Applied to Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery Systems,” (Session 15/3) given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Abstract of a presentation “A Pneumatic Controlled Sewing Device for Endoscopic Application the MIS Sewing Instrument MSI” given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Abstract of a presentation given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux entitled “Session 15/1”, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Abstract of a presentation given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, entitled “Session 15/2”, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page total.
Abstract of a presentation given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux entitled “Session 15/4”, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Abstract of a presentation given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux entitled “Session 15/5”, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Adachi, Yoshitaka, “Touch and Trace on the Free-Form Surface of Virtual Objects, Research & Development Center,” Suzuki Motor Corporation, Yokohama, Japan, Sep. 18-22, 1993, pp. 162-168, IEEE.
Alexander, Arthur D., “A Survey Study of Teleoperators Robotics and Remote Systems Technology,” Remotely Manned Systems Exploration and Operation in Space, California Institute of Technology, 1973, pp. 449-458.
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.
Anderson, Robert J., “Bilateral Control of Teleoperators with Time Delay,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, IEEE, 1989, vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 494-501.
Asada Haruhiko et al., “Development of a direct drive arm using high torque brushless motors,” Proc. of 1st Int. Symp. on Robotics Research, 1984, pp. 583-599, Chapter 7, MIT Press.
Askew, Scott R. et al., “Ground control testbed for space station freedom robot manipulators,” IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1993, pp. 69-75, IEEE.
B-1 Bomber Simulator, 8 pages [online], [retrieved on Jun. 28, 2013]. Retrieved from the Internet: &It;URL: http://www.seeingtheusa.com/2012/10/b-1-bomber-simulator.html>.
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., “A synchronized computational architecture for generalized bilateral control of robot arms,” SPIE Space Station Automation III, 1987, pp. 123-134, vol. 851.
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 Application,” Systems Science, 1987, pp. 23-34, vol. 13 No. 1-2ol 13 No. 1-2.
Ben Gayed, M. et al., “An Advanced Control Micromanipulator for Surgical Applications,” Systems Science, 1987, pp. 123-134, vol. 13.
Besant, Colin et al., Abstract of presentation “Camera Control for Laparoscopic Surgery by Speech recognizing Robot: Constant Attention and Better Use of Personnel,” 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic surgery, 1992, p. 271, vol. 3—issue 3.
Bose, Bijo et al., “Tremor compensation for robotics assisted microsurgery,” Annual Intl Conf. of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Oct.-Nov. 1992, pp. 1067-1068, vol. 14—Issue 3, IEEE.
Bowersox, Jon C. et al., “Vascular applications of telepresence surgery: Initial feasibility studies in swine,” J. Vascular Surgery, Feb. 1996, pp. 281-287, vol. 23—Issue 2.
Butner, Steven E. et al., “A real-time system for tele-surgery,” IEEE 21st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2001, pp. 236-243, IEEE.
Cavusoglu, Murat Cenk et al., “A Laparoscopic Telesurgical Workstation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Aug. 1999, vol. 15, Issue 4, pp. 728-739.
Charles, Steve et al., “Design of a Surgeon Machine Interface for Teleoperated Microsurgery,” Proceedings of IEEE Annual Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1989, pp. 0883-0884, vol. 11, IEEE.
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.
Cohn, Michael C., “Medical Robotics,” http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/ , 1996, pp. 1-8 and 4.
Colgate, Edward, J., “Power and Impedance Scaling in Bilateral Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, California, Apr. 1991, pp. 2292-2297, vol. 3, IEEE.
Colgate, J. Edward, “Robust Impedance Shaping Telemanipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1993, pp. 374-384, vol. 9—No. 4, IEEE.
Computer Motion, Inc., “AESOP: Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning,” Press Release, 1994, 2 pages.
Computer Motion, Inc., “Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning,” Enhancing Performance Through Robotics, Date Unknown, 2 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/111,710, filed Dec. 8, 1998.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/111,711, filed Dec. 8, 1998.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/111,713, filed Dec. 8, 1998.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/111,714, filed Dec. 8, 1998.
U.S. Appl. No. 60/116,891, filed Jan. 22, 1999.
Corcoran, Elizabeth, “Robots for the Operating Room,” The New York Times, 2 pages total, Jul. 19, 1992, Section 3 p. 9C.
Das, Hari et al., “Kinematic Control and Visual Display of Redundant Teleoperators,” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1989, pp. 1072-1077, vol. 3, IEEE.
Dolan, J.M. et al., “A Robot in an Operating Room: A Bull in a China Shop,” 1987, pp. 1096-1097, vol. 2.
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.
Finlay, Patrick A., “Orthosista, An Active Surgical Localiser for Assisting Orthopaedic Fracture Fixation,” Proceedings of the Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery; Baltimore, MD; Nov. 4-7, 1995, pp. 203-207.
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.
Funda, Janez et al., “Constrained Cartesian Motion Control for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, Jun. 1996, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 453-465.
Galloway, Robert L. et al., “A new device for interactive image guided surgery,” Proceedings The International Society of Optical SPIE Medical Imaging V: Image Capture Formatting and Display Kim Y Ed, 1991, pp. 9-18, vol. 1444, SPIE.
Goertz, Ray et al., “ANL mark E4A electric master slave manipulator,” Proc 14th Conf. on Remote System Technology, 1966, pp. 115-123.
Graves, Sean et al., “Dynamic Session Management for Telerobotic Control and Simulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 1740-1745, vol. 2, IEEE.
Green, Philip S., “A Pneumatic Controlled Sewing Device for Endoscopic Application the MIS Sewing Instrument MSI,” Abstract No. 7, 1992.
Green, Philip S. et al., Abstract of a presentation, “Telepresence: Advanced Teleoperator Technology for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” 1992 Medicine Meets Virtual Reality (MMVR) symposium in San Diego, Jun. 4-7, 1992, 1 page.
Green, Philip S. et al., Abstract of a presentation “Telepresence: Advanced Teleoperator Technology for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery In Bordeaux, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 2 pages total, abstract 704.
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.
Green, Philip S. et al., Statutory Declaration by Dr. Phillip S. Green, the presenter of the video entitled “Telepresence Surgery: The Future of Minimally Invasive Medicine,” European Patent Convention in the Matter of EP-B-653922. 32 pages, Sep. 12, 2000.
Guerrouad, Aicha et al., “SMOS: Stereotaxical Microtelemanipulator for Ocular Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society 11th annual international conference, Nov. 9-12, 1989, pp. 879-880, vol. 3, IEEE.
Guo, Shuxinng et al., “Micro active guide wire catheter system-characteristic evaluation, electrical model and operability evaluation of micro active catheter,” Sixth International IEEE Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995, pp. 131-136, IEEE.
Guthart, Gary S. et al., “The IntuitiveT telesurgery system: overview and application,” Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2000, pp. 618-621, vol. 1, IEEE.
Hamilton, E.C. et al., “Comparision of Video Trainer and Virtual Reality Training Systems on acquisitation of Laparoscopic Skills,” Surgical endoscopy, 2001, pp. 406-411, vol. 16, Springer Verlang New York Inc.
Heer, Ewald, “Remotely Manned Systems: Exploration and Operation in Space,” Proceedings of the First National Conference Pasadena, CA, Sep. 13-15, 1972, pp. 449-458 and 483-492.
Hill, John, W. et al., “Tactile Perception Studies Related to Teleoperator Systems,” Final Report, Contract NAS 2-5409, SRI Project 7948, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, 1971, 45 pages.
Hill, John W. et al., “Telepresence Technology in Medicine: Principles and Applications,” Proceedings of IEEE, 1998, vol. 86—Issue 3, pp. 569-580, IEEE.
Hill, John W., “Telepresence surgery demonstration system,” Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 2302-2307, vol. 3, SRI International.
Hogan, Neville, “Controlling Impedance at the Man/Machine Interface,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 1626-1631, vol. 3, IEEE.
Holler, Elmar et al., “An ATM based local communication system for telesurgery,” Interactive Tech. and New Paradigm Healthcare, 1995, pp. 137-146.
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., “Manipulation and dynamic mechanical testing of microscopic objects using a tele-micro-robot system,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 1990, pp. 3-9, vol. 10—Issue 2, IEEE.
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.
Ikuta, Koji et al., “Hyper redundant active endoscope for minimum invasive surgery,” pp. 230-237, Proc. IEEE The First International Conference on Medical Robot and Computer Aided Surgery (MRCAS'94), (1994).
Imaida, Takashi et al., “Ground-Space Bilateral Teleoperation of ETS-VII Robot Arm by Direct Bilateral Coupling Under 7-s Time Delay Condition,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2004, pp. 499-511, vol. 20—No. 3,IEEE.
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.
Iwata, Hiroo, “Pen based haptic virtual environment,” IEEE Institute of Engineering Mechanics U. of Tsukuba Japan, 1993, pp. 287-292, IEEE.
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.
Jau, B. M. “Anthropomorphic Remote Manipulator,” NASA Tech Briefs, Apr. 1991, p. 92, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
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., “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.
Kazerooni, H, “Human/Robot Interaction via the Transfer of Power and Information Signals—Part II,” An Experimental Analysis, Proc. of the 1989 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 1641-1647, vol. 3, IEEE.
Kim, Won S., “Developments of New Force Reflecting Control Schemes and an Application to a Teleoperation Training Simulator,” Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1992, pp. 1412-1419, vol. 2, IEEE.
Kirklin, John W. et al., “Cardiac Surgery,” 1993, 4 Pages Total, vol. 1 and 2, Second ed John Wiley and Sons Inc N Y (Table of Contents).
Kosuge, Kazuhiro, “Bilateral Feedback Control of Telemanipulators via Computer Network,” IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1996, pp. 1380-1385, vol. 3, IEEE.
Krishnan, S.M. et al., Abstract of a presentation “Design Considerations of a New Generation Endoscope Using Robotics and Computer Vision Technology,” given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page.
Landreneau, Rodney J. et al., “Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery: Basic Technical Concepts and Intercostal Approach Strategies,” The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1992, pp. 800-807, vol. 54—Issue 4, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
Lappalainen J., et al., Direct Connection of Simulator and DCS Enhances Testing and Operator Training, 8 pages, [online], [retrieved on Jul. 2, 2013]. Retrieved from the Internet: &It;URL: http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/unsorted/UNTITLED-ENG99495pdf.aspx>.
Lavallee, Stephane, “A New System for Computer Assited Neurosurgery,” IEEE Eng. in Med. & Biol. Soc. 11th Annual International Conference, Jun. 1989, pp. 926-927, vol. 11.
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.
Liu, Alan et al., “A Survey of Surgical Simulation: Applications, Technology and Education,” Presence, 2003, pp. 599-614, MIT Press.
Mack, Michael J. et al., “Video-assisted coronary bypass grafting on the beating heart,” The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1997, pp. S100-S103, vol. 63 (6 Suppl).
Madhani, Akhil J. et al., “The black falcon: A teleoperated surgical instrument for minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) Victoria B.C. Canada ), 1998, pp. 936-944, vol. 2, IEEE.
Madhani, Akhil, “Thesis Proposal: Force-Reflecting Teleoperated Endoscopic Surgery,” 1995, pp. 1-6 w/attachments pp. 1-2.
Mair, Gordon M., Industrial Robotics, Prentice Hall, 1988, pp. 41-43, 49-50, 54, 203-209.
Majima S. et al., “On a Micro Manipulator for Medical Application Stability Consideration of its Bilateral Controller Mechatronics,” 1991, pp. 293-309, vol. 1—Issue 3.
Medical Simulation, 7 pages, [online], [retrieved on Jul. 2, 2013]. Retrieved from the Internet: &It;URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical—simulation>.
Melzer, Abstract of a presentation “Concept and Experimental Application of a Surgical Robotic System the Steerable MIS Instrument SMI,” given at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, Jun. 18-20, 1992, 1 page total.
Moravec, Hans, Peter, “Obstacle Avoidance and Navigation in the Real World by a Seeing Robot Rover,” PhD thesis, 1980, Chapter 3, pp. 13-18, Stanford University.
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.
Nudehi, Shahin S. et al., “A Shared-Control Approach to Haptic Interface Design for Minimally Invasive Telesurgical Training,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2005, pp. 588-592, vol. 13—No. 4, IEEE.
Preising, B. et al., “A Literature Review: Robots in Medicine,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1991, pp. 13-22, 71, vol. 10—Issue 2, IEEE.
Rasor, Ned S. et al., “Endocorporeal Surgery Using Remote Manipulators,” Proceedings of the First National Conference held at California Institute of Technology, 1972, pp. 483-492.
Richardson, I. E. G. et al., “SAVIOUR: Telemedicine in Action,” IEE Colloquium on Teleworking and Teleconferencing, 1994, pp. 4/1-4/2, IEEE.
Rosheim, Mark E., Chapter 5: “Pitch-Yaw-Roll Wrists,” Robot Wrist Actuators, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989, pp. 95-206.
Rovetta, Alberto et al., “The first experiment in the world of robot telesurgery for laparoscopy carried out by means of satellites networks and optical fibers networks on Jul. 7, 1993,” 1993, pp. 51-56, vol. 1, IEEE.
Sabatini, A. M. et al., “Force Feedback Based Telemicromanipulation for Robot Surgery on Soft Tissue,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 11th Annual International Conference, 1989, pp. 890-891, vol. 3, IEEE.
Sackier J.M., et al., “Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery, From Concept to Development,” Surgical Endoscopy, Springer-Verlag, 1994, vol. 8 (8), pp. 63-66.
Sastry, Shankar et al., “Millirobotics for the remote minamally invasive surgery,” Proceedings of the Intl. Workshop on Some Critical Issues in Robotics, Singapore, Oct. 2-3, 1995, pp. 81-98.
Sato, Yoshinobu et al., “The Safety Assessment of Human-Robot Systems(Architectonic principles of hazard-control systems),” JSME International Journal, 1989, pp. 67-74, vol. 32—Issue 1.
Schenker Paul S. et al., “Development of a New High Dexterity Manipulator for Robot Assisted Microsurgery,” Proceedings of SPIE, The Intl.Society for Optical Engineering, 1994, pp. 191-198, vol. 2351.
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.
Seymour, Neal E. et al., “Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance,” Annals of Surgery, 2002, pp. 458-464, vol. 236—No. 4, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Shimoga, K.B. et al., “Touch and Force Reflection for Telepresence Surgery,” Proceedings of The 16th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Engineering Advances: New Opportunities for Biomedical Engineers, 1994, pp. 1049-1050, vol. 2, IEEE.
Simulation, 22 pages, [online], [retrieved on Jul. 2, 2013]. Retrieved from the Internet: &It;URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation>.
Smith, Warren E. et al., “Correction of Distortion in Endoscope Images,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Mar. 1992, pp. 117-122, vol. 11—Issue 1, IEEE.
Stevens, Jane E., “Cyber Surgery Computers cameras and robots are creating an improved operating system for doctors,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 2.
Sukthankar, Sujat M. et al., “Towards force feedback in laparoscopic surgical tools,” IEEE Human Interface Laboratory Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Ohio, 1994, pp. 1041-1042, IEEE.
Taubes, Gary et al., “Surgery in Cyberspace,” Discover magazine, Dec. 1994, vol. 15, issue 12, pp. 85-92.
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., “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 Surgery: Technology and Clinical Applications,” 1996, pp. vii-xii, MIT Press Cambridge MA.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Computer-Integrated Surgery,” 1996, 8 Pages, MIT Press.
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., “Taming the Bull: Safety in a Precise Surgical Robot,” Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics (91 ICAR), Jun. 19-22, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 865-870, IEEE.
Tejima, Noriyuki et al., “A New Microsurgical Robot System for Corneal Transplantation,” Precision Machinery, 1988, pp. 1-9, vol. 2, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Inc.
Tendick Frank, et al., “Analysis of the Surgeon's Grasp for Telerobotic Surgical Manipulation,” IEEE 11th Annual Int Conf on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Jun. 1989, pp. 914-915, IEEE.
Tendick, Frank et al., “Comparison of laproscopic imaging systems and conditions using a knot tying task,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Nov. 4-7, 1995, 9 pages.
Thring, M.W., Robots and Telechirs: Manipulators with Memory; Remote Manipulators; Machine Limbs for the Handicapped, 1983, pp. 9-11, 108-131, 194-195, 235-279; Ellis Horwood Limited, Chapter 5,7 ,8,9.
Transcript of a video presented by SRI at the 3rd World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery in Bordeaux, France on Jun. 18-20, 1992; in Washington, D.C. on Apr. 9, 1992; and in San Diego, CA on Jun. 4-7, 1992; entitled “Telepresence Surgery: The Future of Minimally Invasive Medicine,” 3 pages.
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.
Trinder J. C. et al., “A Close Range Digital Photogrammetry System,” 1990, pp. 440-447, vol. 1395, SPIE.
Tsai, Roger Y., “A Versatile Camera Calibration Technique for High-Accuracy 3D Machine Vision Metrology Using Off-the-Shelf TV Cameras and Lenses,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 1987, pp. 323-344, vol. RA-3—Issue 4, IEEE.
U.S. Appl. No. 09/399,457, filed Sep. 17, 1999 (now abandoned), Ramans, Andris D.
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, 1987, pp. 309-316.
Wapler, M., “Medical manipulators—A Realistic Concept”, Minimally Invasive Therapy, 1995, pp. 261-266, vol. 4, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Wolf, Stanley et al., Student Reference Manual for Electronic Instrumentation Laboratories, 1990, pp. 498 and 499, Prentice Hall New Jersey.
Yan, Joseph, et al., “Design and Control of a Motion Scaling System for Microsurgery Experiments,” Proc of First Intl Symp on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1994, pp. 211-216.
Yan, Joseph et al., “Teleoperation Controller Design Using H Optimization with Application to Motion Scaling,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 1996, pp. 244-258, vol. 4—No. 3, IEEE.
Yokokohji, Yasuyoshi and Tsuneo Yoshikawa, “Bilateral Control of Master-Slave Manipulators for Ideal Kinesthetic Coupling Formulation and Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 1994, vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 605-620.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20160140875 A1 May 2016 US
Provisional Applications (7)
Number Date Country
60725770 Oct 2005 US
60109303 Nov 1998 US
60109301 Nov 1998 US
60150145 Aug 1999 US
60116891 Jan 1999 US
60116842 Jan 1999 US
60109359 Nov 1998 US
Divisions (4)
Number Date Country
Parent 13965581 Aug 2013 US
Child 15006555 US
Parent 11319012 Dec 2005 US
Child 13965581 US
Parent 09436982 Nov 1999 US
Child 10214286 US
Parent 10246236 Sep 2002 US
Child 10948853 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 10214286 Aug 2002 US
Child 11025766 US
Continuation in Parts (6)
Number Date Country
Parent 11025766 Dec 2004 US
Child 11319012 US
Parent 09433120 Nov 1999 US
Child 09436982 US
Parent 09399457 Sep 1999 US
Child 09433120 US
Parent 09374643 Aug 1999 US
Child 09399457 US
Parent 10948853 Sep 2004 US
Child 11319012 Dec 2005 US
Parent 10051796 Jan 2002 US
Child 10246236 US