Synthetic representation of a surgical robot

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11638999
  • Patent Number
    11,638,999
  • Date Filed
    Friday, July 17, 2020
    3 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, May 2, 2023
    a year ago
Abstract
A system comprises a first robotic arm adapted to support and move a tool and a second robotic arm adapted to support and move a camera. The system also comprises an input device, a display, and a processor. The processor is configured to, in a first mode, command the first robotic arm to move the camera in response to a first input received from the input device to capture an image of the tool and present the image as a displayed image on the display. The processor is configured to, in a second mode, display a synthetic image of the first robotic arm in a boundary area around the captured image on the display, and in response to a second input, change a size of the boundary area relative a size of the displayed image.
Description
BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgeries performed by robotic surgical systems are known and commonly used in remote or in other environments where it is advantageous for a human not to perform surgery. One example of such a telerobotic surgical system is the minimally invasive robotic surgery system described in commonly owned U.S. Pat. No. 7,155,315. The da Vinci® Surgical Systems manufactured by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. are illustrative implementations of minimally invasive robotic surgical systems (e.g., teleoperated; telesurgical).


A common form of minimally invasive surgery is endoscopy. Endoscopic surgical instruments in minimally invasive medical techniques generally include an endoscope for viewing the surgical field, and working tools that include end effectors. Typical surgical end effectors include clamps, graspers, scissors, staplers, or needle holders, as examples. The working tools are similar to those used in conventional (open) surgery, except that the end effector of each tool is supported on the end of, for example, an approximately 12-inch-long extension tube.


To manipulate end effectors, a human operator, typically a surgeon, manipulates or otherwise commands a locally-provided master manipulator. Commands from the master manipulator are translated as appropriate and sent to a remotely-deployed slave manipulator. The slave manipulator then manipulates the end effectors according to the operator's commands.


Force feedback may be included in minimally invasive robotic surgical systems. To provide such feedback, the remote slave manipulators typically provide force information to the master manipulator, and that force information is utilized to provide force feedback to the surgeon so that the surgeon is given the perception of feeling forces acting on a slave manipulator. In some force feedback implementations, haptic feedback may provide an artificial feel to the surgeon of tissue reactive forces on a working tool and its end effector.


Often, the master controls, which are typically located at a surgeon console, will include a clutch or other device for releasing one of the work tools at the patient site. This feature may be used, for example, in a system where there are more than two working tools. In such a system, the surgeon may release control of one working tool by one master and establish control over another working tool with that master.


The surgeon typically views an image of only the distal ends of the working tools that are within the endoscope's field of view. The surgeon cannot see portions of a tool, or an entire tool, that is outside the field of view. Accordingly, the surgeon cannot see if two or more tools are interfering with each other outside the field of view. Further, since the endoscope may be manipulated to be at various positions and orientations with reference to a surgical site and to the surgeon's body frame of reference, the surgeon may become confused about the general location of the tools. Consequently, the surgeon may not understand how to best move the master manipulators to avoid an inter-tool interference or to reorient one or more tools with reference to the surgical site.


SUMMARY

The following presents a simplified summary of some aspects and embodiments of the invention in order to provide a basic understanding of the invention. This summary is not an extensive overview of the invention. It is not intended to identify key/critical elements of the invention or to delineate the scope of the invention. Its sole purpose is to present some aspects and embodiments of the invention in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented later.


In an embodiment, a robotic surgical system is provided. The system includes a robot including a linkage supporting at least one tool for performing surgery on a patient; a kinematic component coupled to the robot so as to obtain joint state information from the linkage; a display; and a first component coupling the display with the kinematic component so as to display a synthetic representation of the robot including a graphical representation of at least a portion of the linkage based upon linkage structure data regarding the linkage; and the joint state information.


In another embodiment, a robotic surgical system is provided. The system includes a robot including an image capture device having a field of view and a linkage supporting at least one tool for performing surgery on a patient; a kinematic component coupled to the linkage so as to obtain joint states information regarding the linkage; data regarding structure of the first linkage and said at least one tool; and a collision detection component coupled to the data and to the kinematic component so as to generate a warning.


In still another embodiment, a method of controlling a position of a tool in a robotic system is provided. The method includes displaying a first image on a display, the first image comprising a video feed of a tool or linkage of a robot within a field of view; displaying a second image on the display, the second image representing a three dimensional model of the tool or linkage, with the second image of the three dimensional model aligned with first image of the tool or linkage; and moving an input device with reference to the first and second images on the display so as to control movement of the tool or linkage.


In yet still another embodiment, a method of providing a range of motion of a tool of a robotic system is provided. The method includes displaying a first image representing a position of the tool; and superimposing on the first image a second image representing a limit of motion of the tool.


In yet another embodiment, a robotic system is provided. The method includes maintaining information about a position of a tool of a robotic system; and generating a signal as a result of the tool being within a threshold distance from a limit of motion of the tool.


In another embodiment, a robotic surgical system is provided. The system includes a robot including a linkage supporting at least one tool for performing surgery on a patient; an image capture device having a field of view encompassing the tool; a kinematic component coupled to the robot so as to obtain joint state information from the linkage; a display coupled to the image capture device to display the field of view; and a first component coupling the display with the kinematic component so as to display information on the tool represented in the field of view, the position of the information being based upon linkage structure data regarding the linkage; and the joint state information.


In still another embodiment, a method in a robotic system is provided. The method includes displaying a first image comprising a video feed of a tool supported by a robot within a field of view; and displaying a synthetic three-dimensional representation of the robot including the tool.


In another embodiment, a method in a robotic system is provided. The method includes displaying a first image comprising a video feed of a tool supported by a robot within a field of view, the first image consisting of a first portion of the robot; and displaying a synthetic three-dimensional representation of the robot including the tool, with the synthetic three-dimensional representation comprising a second portion of the robot that is greater than the first portion.


In yet another embodiment, a method is provided in a robotic system, the method including displaying a first image comprising a video feed of a tool supported by a robot within a field of view, the first image consisting of a first portion of the robot viewed from a first direction; and displaying a synthetic three-dimensional representation of the robot including the tool, with the synthetic three-dimensional representation viewed from a second direction.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 shows a top view of an operating room which includes a minimally invasive telesurgical system;



FIG. 2 is front view of a patient cart for the minimally invasive telesurgical system of FIG. 1;



FIG. 3 is a block diagram representing components of the minimally invasive telesurgical system of FIG. 1;



FIG. 4 is a block diagram representing components for a computer for use in the minimally invasive telesurgical system of FIG. 1;



FIG. 5 is a side perspective view of a master controller;



FIG. 6 is a view of a synthetic image of a robot;



FIG. 7 is a flowchart representing a process for updating a rendering of a synthetic image;



FIG. 8 is a view provided by a display that provides both a field of view for an endoscope and a synthetic image of a robot supporting the endoscope;



FIG. 9 shows a tile window displaying an alternate angle for viewing a portion of the synthetic image of a robot;



FIG. 10 shows a field of view in which two tools are colliding;



FIG. 11 is a flowchart showing a process for providing collision information;



FIG. 12 is a flow chart representing a process for lost tool recovery;



FIG. 13 shows a field of view projected over a window tile that includes a synthetic image of a robot; and



FIG. 14 is a flow chart representing a process for displaying information utilizing a modeling component.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the following description, various aspects and embodiments of the present invention will be described. For purposes of explanation, specific configurations and details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments. However, it will also be apparent to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without the specific details. Furthermore, well-known features may be omitted from this description or simplified in order not to obscure the embodiment being described.


Referring now to the drawings, in which like reference numerals represent like parts throughout several views, FIG. 1 shows a minimally invasive telesurgical system 20 having an operator station or surgeon console 30 in accordance with an embodiment. The surgeon console 30 includes a viewer 32 where an image of a surgical site is displayed to a surgeon S. As is known, a support (not shown) is provided on which the surgeon S can rest his or her forearms while gripping two master controls 700 (FIG. 5), one in each hand. More controls may be provided if more end effectors are available, but typically a surgeon manipulates only two controls at a time and, if multiple tools are used, the surgeon releases one tool with a master control 700 and grasps another with same master control. When using the surgeon console 30, the surgeon S typically sits in a chair in front of the surgeon console, positions his or her eyes in front of the viewer 32, and grips the master controls 700, one in each hand, while resting his or her forearms on the support.


A patient side cart 40 of the telesurgical system 20 is positioned adjacent to a patient P. In use, the patient side cart 40 is positioned close to the patient P requiring surgery. The patient side cart 40 typically is stationary during a surgical procedure, and includes wheels or castors to render it mobile. The surgeon console 30 is typically positioned remote from the patient side cart 40, and it may be separated from the patient side cart by a great distance—even miles away—but will typically be used within the same operating room as the patient side cart.


The patient side cart 40, shown in more detail in FIG. 2, typically includes two or more robotic arm assemblies. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the patient side cart 40 includes four robotic arm assemblies 42, 44, 46, 48, but more or less may be provided. Each robotic arm assembly 42, 44, 46, 48 is normally operatively connected to one of the master controls of the surgeon console 30. Thus, movement of the manipulator portion of the robotic arm assemblies 44, 4648 is controlled by manipulation of the master controls.


One of the robotic arm assemblies, indicated by the reference numeral 42, is arranged to hold an image capture device 50, e.g., an endoscope, or the like. The endoscope or image capture device 50 includes a viewing end 56 at a remote end of an elongated shaft 54. The elongated shaft 54 permits the viewing end 56 to be inserted through a surgery entry port of the patient P. The image capture device 50 is operatively connected to the viewer 32 of the surgeon console 30 to display an image captured at its viewing end 56.


Each of the other robotic arm assemblies 44, 46, 48 is a linkage that supports a removable surgical instrument or tool 60, 62, 64, respectively. The tools 60, 62, 64 of the robotic arm assemblies 44, 46, 48 include end effectors 66, 68, 70, respectively. The end effectors 66, 68, 70 are mounted on wrist members which are mounted on distal ends of elongated shafts of the tools, as is known in the art. The tools 60, 62, 64 have elongated shafts to permit the end effectors 66, 68, 70 to be inserted through surgical entry ports of the patient P. Movement of the end effectors 66, 68, 70 relative to the ends of the shafts of the tools 60, 62, 64 is controlled by the master controls of the surgeon console 30.


The depicted telesurgical system 20 includes a vision cart 80, which contains equipment associated with the image capture device. In another embodiment, the vision cart 80 can be combined with other equipment that includes most of the computer equipment or other controls (the “core” data processing equipment) for operating the telesurgical system 20. As an example, signals sent by the master controllers of the surgeon console 30 may be sent to the vision/core cart 80, which in turn may interpret the signals and generate commands for the end effectors 66, 68, 70 and/or robotic arm assemblies 44, 46, 48. In addition, video sent from the image capture device 50 to the viewer 34 may be processed by, or simply transferred by, the vision cart 80.



FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic representation of the telesurgical system 20. As can be seen, the system includes the surgeon console 30, the patient side cart 40, and the vision cart 80. In addition, in accordance with an embodiment, an additional computer 82 and display 84 are provided. These components may be incorporated in one or more of the surgeon console 30, the patient side cart 40, and/or the vision cart 80. For example, the features of the computer 82 may be incorporated into the vision cart 80. In addition, the features of the display 84 may be incorporated into the surgeon console 30, for example, in the viewer 32, or maybe provided by a completely separate display at the surgeon console or on another location. In addition, in accordance with an embodiment, the computer 82 may generate information that may be utilized without a display, such as the display 84.


Although described as a “computer,” the computer 82 may be a component of a computer system or any other software or hardware that is capable of performing the functions described herein. Moreover, as described above, functions and features of the computer 82 may be distributed over several devices or software components. Thus, the computer 82 shown in the drawings is for the convenience of discussion, and it may be replaced by a controller or its functions may be provided by one or more other components.



FIG. 4 shows components of the computer 82 in accordance with an embodiment. A positional component is included in or is otherwise associated with the computer 82. The positional component provides information about a position of an end effector, such as one of the end effectors 66, 68, 70. In the embodiment shown in the drawings, a tool tracking component 90 is used for the positional component and provides information about a position of an end effector, such as the end effectors 66, 68, 70. As used herein, “position” means at least one of the location and/or the orientation of the end effector. A variety of different technologies may be used to provide information about a position of an end effector, and such technologies may or may not be considered tool tracking devices. In a simple embodiment, the positional component utilizes video feed from the image capture device 50 to provide information about the position of an end effector, but other information may be used instead of, or in addition to, this visual information, including sensor information, kinematic information, any combination of these, or additional information that may provide the position and/or orientation of the end effectors 66, 68, 70. Examples of systems that may be used for the tool tracking component 90 are disclosed in, U.S. Pat. No. 5,950,629 (filed Apr. 28, 1994), U.S. Pat. No. 6,468,265 (filed Nov. 9, 1999), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2006/0258938 A1 (filed May 16, 2005), and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2008/0004603 A1 (filed Jun. 29, 2006). In accordance with an embodiment, the tool tracking component 90 utilizes the systems and methods described in commonly owned U.S. Pat. App. No. 61/204,084 (filed Dec. 31, 2008). In general, the positional component maintains information about the actual position and orientation of end effectors. This information is updated depending upon when the information is available, and may be, for example, asynchronous information.


The kinematic component 92 is generally any device that estimates a position, herein a “kinematic position,” of an end effector utilizing information available through the telesurgical system 20. In an embodiment, the kinematic component 92 utilizes kinematic position information from joint states of a linkage to the end effector. For example, the kinematic component 92 may utilize the master/slave architecture for the telesurgical system 20 to calculate intended Cartesian positions of the end effectors 66, 68, 70 based upon encoder signals for the joints in the linkage for each of the tools 60, 62, 64. As examples, the kinematic component may utilize slave encoders 102 and/or master manipulator encoders to estimate the position of tool. An example of system utilizing an embodiment of a kinematic component is described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,155,315, which is incorporated herein by reference, although others may be utilized. Kinematic position information for the end effector or any portion of the linkage and/or tool may also be provided in other ways, such as the use of optical fiber shape sensing, sensing the positions of components (e.g., electromagnetic components) embedded at various places along the linkage, tool, or end effector, various video tool tracking methods, etc.


In the embodiment shown in the drawings, an error correction component 94 is provided. In general, the error correction component calculates a difference between a location and/or orientation of a tool as provided by the tool tracking component 90 compared to the location and/or orientation of the tool as provided by the kinematic component 92. Because of the large number of joints and movable parts, current kinematics measurement typically does not provide exact information for the location of a surgical end effector in space. A system with sufficient rigidity and sensing could theoretically provide near-exact kinetic information. In current minimally invasive robotic surgery systems, however, often the kinematic information may be inaccurate by up to an inch in any direction when taken in space. Thus, in accordance with an embodiment, an offset may be generated by the error correction component 94. This offset provides information regarding the difference between the kinematic information provided by the kinematic component and the actual position information provided by the tool tracking component. Utilizing the offset, the kinematic information and the actual position information may be registered to the same location and/or orientation.


In accordance with an embodiment, a modeling component 108 is provided for generating a synthetic image 120 (FIG. 6) of a patient side cart, such as the patient side cart 40, or any portion thereof. In the embodiment shown in the drawings, the synthetic image 120 is of a different patient side cart configuration than the patient side cart 40 (an illustrative model of a da Vinci® Surgical System Model IS2000 patient side cart with three arms is shown), but the basic components of the two patient side carts are the same, except that the patient side cart 40 includes an additional robotic arm assembly and tool. In accordance with an embodiment, the synthetic image 120 may be displayed on the display 84 or the viewer 32. To this end, modeling data 104 (FIG. 3) may be provided that is associated with the vision cart 80 and/or the computer 82. The modeling data 104 may be, for example, a two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) representation, such as an image, of the patient side cart 40, or any portion thereof. In an embodiment, such a representation is a 3-D model of the patient side cart 40, or any portion thereof, and thus may represent an actual solid model of the patient side cart 40, or any portion thereof. The modeling data 104 may be, for example, CAD data or other 3-D solid model data representing components of the patient side cart 40. In an embodiment, the 3-D model is manipulatable at each joint of the patient side cart 40, so that movements of the patient side cart may be mimicked by the synthetic image 120 of the patient side cart 40. The modeling data may represent the entire patient side cart or any portion thereof, such as only the tools for the patient side cart.


Joint locations and orientations are generally known from kinematic data provided, for example, by the kinematic component 92. Utilizing this information, each component of the patient side cart may be rendered in location so as to generate a image of the patient side cart that appears in 3-D to the surgeon. Thus, in an embodiment, the modeling data 104 includes individualized information for each component or link of the patient side cart robot.


In accordance with an embodiment, the modeling component 108 constantly updates the location and/or orientation of the components of the synthetic image 120 in accordance with information provided by the tool tracking component 90 and/or the kinematic component 92. For example, an initial state of the kinematic component 92 may be determined including a position of one or more end effectors for the patient side cart. These positions may be compared with position information provided by the tool tracking component 90. As described above, the difference between the actual position as determined by the tool tracking component 90 and the estimated position of the end effectors provided by the kinematic component 92 may result in an offset, which may be stored in or otherwise used by the error correction component 94. This offset may be used to register the position and orientation of an end effector as determined by the tool tracking component 90 to the position and orientation as estimated by the kinematic component 92.


As data is available from the tool tracking component 90, the actual position of the end effector may be tracked and registered with information provided by the kinematic component 92. When tool tracking information is not available from the tool tracking component 90, an assumption may be made that any change in kinematic information provided by the kinematic component 92 is an indication of actual movement by the end effector. That is, when tool tracking is not available, the position of an end effector may be accurately determined by the change in coordinate positions between the current position and the last known position, as calculated by the kinematic component 92. The assumption here is that the change in position may be accurately calculated using only kinematic data, without tool tracking information. This assumption is reasonable, because although kinematic information is often not accurate for calculating a position of an end effector in space, it is typically accurate for calculating a change of position once a position is known, especially over a short period of time or for a small amount of movement. Thus, asynchronous data may be provided by the tool tracking component 90, and synchronous data may be provided by the kinematic component 92. The combination of this information provides data regarding the positions and orientations of the components of the patient side cart 40.


The positions of the components of a robotic arm assembly may be determined by utilizing the joint states provided by the kinematic component. These joint states are calculated backwards from the end effector, the position of which is known, as described above. In addition, because the slave encoders 102 at the joints of robotic arm assemblies 122 for the patient side cart provide change in state information for each joint, the relative position of each section of the robotic arm assemblies may be accurately estimated and tracked. Thus, information can be provided to the modeling component 108 that is sufficient so that modeling component 108 may generate the synthetic image 120 by utilizing the modeling data 104, with the position of each of the segments of the robotic arm assemblies 122, including tools 124 at the end of the robotic arm assemblies, or an endoscope 126 at the end of one of the robotic arm assemblies.


Referring again to FIG. 6, in an embodiment, in addition to the synthetic image 120 for the patient side cart, a view volume 130 for the endoscope is provided. The view volume 130 represents a projection of the field of view of the endoscope 126. The field of view is the view visible by the endoscope, and the view volume is a projection of the boundaries of the field of view. That is, the view volume 130 represents a 3-D space that is visible by the endoscope 126. If desired, as shown in FIG. 4, camera information 132 may be provided to the modeling component 108. The camera information includes a calibrated set of intrinsic and extrinsic parameters about the camera. The intrinsic parameters include, e.g., focal length and principle point, which model the perspective mapping of the optics. Additionally, the intrinsic parameters may account for lens distortion. The extrinsic parameters may account for, e.g., relative position and orientation between the stereo endoscopic views. As can be understood, changing the parameters, such as zoom, of the endoscope will change the view volume for the endoscope, such as making the view volume narrower or wider. In addition, as the endoscope 126 is moved, the view volume 130 will move accordingly. The camera information permits the creation of a 3-D stereo rendering that may be superimposed on the stereo view of the end effector from the image capture device, as described below.



FIG. 7 is a flowchart representing a process for updating a rendering of a synthetic image 120 in accordance with an embodiment. Beginning at 401, the position and orientation of the patient side cart, or any portion thereof, is sensed. This sensing may occur, for example, via the tool tracking component 90 and/or the kinematic component 92, as described above.


At 402, the position and orientation information from 401 is used to generate a model (e.g., the synthetic image 120). As described above, the modeling component 108 uses the modeling data 104 to generate the model. The position and orientation information provided from 401 is utilized to correctly arrange the position and orientation of the synthetic model to match that of the patient side cart.


At 404, as a result of the patient side cart moving, information is received. The movement may be, for example, movement of one of the robotic arm assemblies, movement of the endoscope, change in the focus of the endoscope, or movement by one of the end effectors. The movement of the end effector may be a change in location or orientation, including, for example, closing of pinchers or other operational movement of the end effectors.


At 406, a determination is made whether tool tracking information is available. In the embodiment show in FIG. 4, the determination is whether an image is available so that the actual position of the end effector or any portion of the tool that is in a field of view (e.g., the view volume 130) of the endoscope 126 may be found using the tool tracking component 90. In one aspect, if tool tracking is available, then 406 branches to 408 where the tool tracking information is utilized to update information about the position and orientation of the tool and/or end effector.


At 410, the kinematic information is used to update information about the location and orientation of the joints of each linkage of the robot for the patient side cart. At 412, the offset is updated, if desired. At 414, the display of the synthetic image 120 is updated, and the process branches back to 404.


At 406, if the tool tracking information is not available, then the process branches to 416, where the kinematic information provided by the kinematic component 92 is utilized to determine the position of the end effector. The process then proceeds to 410, and then on through the process, although since the tool tracking information was not available on this loop, the offset will likely not be updated, skipping 412.


Utilizing the method shown in FIG. 7, a 3-D rendering of the synthetic image 120 is generated, and the synthetic image accurately represents the physical configuration of the patient side cart at any point in time throughout a surgical procedure. This information can be utilized and viewed by the surgeon S, or by someone else, to evaluate the state of the patient side cart. As described below, the viewer 34 or the display 82 may show the synthetic image 120, either from a point of view that is the same as the point of view from the endoscope, or from another angle or distance. The synthetic image 120 enables observation of all parts of the patient view cart via the viewer 32, thus permitting the surgeon S to monitor movements of the robot and tools. In addition, in accordance with an embodiment, viewing of these components is available in connection with the view volume 130, permitting a surgeon to have a good perspective of where the endoscope's field of view is with respect to space. The view volume 130 provides a three dimensional representation of what is being seen by the surgeon S when looking in the viewer 32.


If desired, a single display may be provided for showing both the field of view of the endoscope and the synthetic image 120. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a view 200 provided by the viewer 32 or the display 84 provides both an actual field of view image 202 for the endoscope 126 and the synthetic image 120. The synthetic image 120 is shown in a separate tile window 204. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 8, the tile 204 is approximately the same size as the field of view 202, but if desired, the tile window may be smaller or larger than the field of view 202. Also, if desired, a toggle or other feature may be provided so that the surgeon may switch back and forth between a larger presentation of the synthetic image 120 or the field of view 202. In addition, the synthetic image 120 and/or the tile window 204 may be partially superimposed over a portion of the field of view, either on a continuous basis or upon request.


As an example of toggling back and forth between a larger presentation of the synthetic image 120 or the field of view 202, a camera control may be provided that is connected to the master manipulators. For example, a user may start looking at the endoscopic view and may pull the endoscope back by pulling the his hands towards himself while in a camera control mode. At some point, the endoscope cannot be pulled back any farther, and the field of view encompasses a maximum area. Continuing to pull back on the master controls (with or without a haptic detent or other indication) can expose a view showing sections of a synthetic image 120 along the borders of the real image (e.g., the image captured in field of view 202). Pulling back even farther on the master controls (with or without haptic detent or other indication) may provide a view where the image captured in field of view 202 is only the middle section of the screen. Pulling back still farther on the controls (with or without haptic detent or other indication) may provide the entire synthetic image 120. Reversing the master control direction can be used to reverse such a real-to-synthetic zoom out function and control a synthetic-to-real zoom in function. As an alternative to camera control using master manipulator movement, the system may be configured to use another control input (e.g., a foot pedal, a finger button on a manipulator, the roll of the master manipulator grip, and the like) to control the zoom functions.



FIG. 9 shows a tile window 208 displaying an alternate angle for viewing a portion of the synthetic image 120. In the embodiment shown, the view volume 130 is slightly tilted from the actual field of view of the endoscope, but the particular angle of view of the view volume 130 shows relevant information regarding the configuration of the tools 124 with respect to the view volume.


The features of the synthetic image 120 provide another number of benefits to a user of the minimally invasive telesurgical system 20. Some of these advantages are set forth below.


Collision Detection


Typically, in a minimally invasive telesurgical system, only the most distal portions of the surgical tools, such as the tools 124, may be visible to the surgeon in the field of view of the endoscope 126 at any time. Depending upon the configuration of the patient side cart, it is possible that collisions between moving parts of the robot assembly may occur which are not visible to the surgeon in the field of view. Some of these collisions (“outer collisions” because they are outside of the field of view for the endoscope 126) may occur between the linkages of robotic arm assemblies leading to the tools, the collisions may occur between two tools, or may occur between a tool and a linkage. Such outer collisions may occur outside the body or inside the body but not within the field of view. In addition, an outer collision may occur between one tool that is in the field of view and another tool that is slightly outside the field of view. Collisions occurring inside the body and in the field of view of the endoscope are “inner collisions”.


In accordance with an embodiment, the synthetic image 120 and/or the information generated by the modeling component 128 may be utilized for collision detection. As an example, a surgeon viewing the viewer 32, or another individual viewing the display 84, may view the synthetic image 120 to see an indication of an imminent or actual collision.


Collision detection may involve more than just a visual image of a collision. Information about relative locations of robot linkages and tools is maintained by the modeling component 128, and this information may be used to generate a signal if two components are sensed to be too close to one another. For example, each tool may be treated like a capsule or cylinder, having a particular radius or buffer zone outside the tool's surface. Using the actual position information from the tool tracking component and/or the kinematic information from the kinematic component 92, the modeling component 108 may predict or warn of a collision. For example, if two tools 124 are presumed to have a radius of one half inch each, then if the center line for one of the tools comes within an inch of the center line for a second tool, then the modeling component 108 may assume that a collision has occurred. A separate signal may be generated if the two tools are calculated to be close, but not in contact, with each other. For the above example, this distance may be, e.g., a center line distance between the tools of 1.20 inches.



FIG. 10 shows at the bottom a display tile window in which a real field of view image 250 shows two tools 252, 254 colliding. Although the collision in FIG. 10 is within the field of view 250, as described above, the collision may take place outside the field of view or even outside the body of the patient. Even if inside the field of view, the tools 252, 254 are not necessarily visible, because they may be blocked by cauterization smoke, blood, or an organ, as examples. In FIG. 10, the inner collision is seen in the field of view 250, but it is also detected by the modeling component 108.


At the top of FIG. 10 is a display tile window 260 representing the synthetic image 120. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 10, the tile window 260 is taken from the same point of view as the field of view 250, but a different point of view may be provided as described above. In addition, as described above, outer collisions, as well as inner collisions, may be detected.



FIG. 11 is a flowchart showing an illustrative process for providing collision information in accordance with an embodiment. The process begins at 1100. At 1102, a model, such as the synthetic image 120, is generated. This generation process is described with reference to FIG. 7. At 1104, the robot for the patient side cart is moved. At 1105, the proximity of linkages and/or tools of the robotic arm assemblies 122 are computed. At 1106, a determination is made whether the proximities are within a high threshold. The high threshold represents spacing between tools or linkages at which a warning of a collision is given. For example, as described above, if two tools are assumed to have a radius of a half an inch, the high threshold may be a centerline separation of 1.2 inches. If the components of the patient side cart are not within the high threshold, 1106 branches back to 1104, and the robot continues to move.


If two components of the patient side cart are within the high threshold, then 1106 branches to 1108, where a warning is generated. This warning may be an audible warning, a visual warning (e.g., provided within the viewer 32 or on the display 84), or another suitable indication of collision proximity. If visual, the warning may be presented, for example, in the field of view 250 (FIG. 10). In the embodiment shown in FIG. 10, the words “inner collision error” are shown, indicating an actual collision. Alternatively, for a warning message, a message stating that tools are too close or similar may be provided. In addition, for the view of the synthetic image 120, the color of the tools 124 may change to provide the warning, such as changing from a metal color to yellow for a warning.


A surgeon may or may not elect to rearrange the robot after the warning is generated at 1108. In either event, the process proceeds to 1110, where the robot has moved again. At 1112, a determination is made whether the robot is within a low threshold. In an embodiment, the low threshold represents a distance, such as a center line distance, at which a collision is assumed. If the low threshold is not met, the process branches back to 1104 and continues to loop, likely continuing to generate the warning message unless the components of the patient side cart are moved to outside the high threshold in 1106.


If the components are within the low threshold, then 1112 branches to 1114, where collision information is generated, such as a collision warning or message. As an example, in FIG. 10, the collision error warning is provided in the field of view 250. (Both near and actual collision warnings may use the same or different indications.) A similar collision error warning may be provided in the tile window 260, and the tools 124 may change colors, such as to red, to show a collision error. The process then loops back to 1104.


As stated above, for collision detection, the components need not be in the field of view of the viewer 32. Thus, when components of the patient side cart are improperly aligned and are approaching a collision or actually have a collision, information may be provided, either in visual form or in the form of a warning or error message. The warning may be particularly helpful where a user is not familiar with operation of the robot and may put the tools or robotic arm assemblies in an awkward position. The person viewing the viewer 32 may select a different synthetic view angle and distance of the robot so as to determine the near collision or actual collision point between two robotic manipulators. Once the operator views the collision point, he or she may adjust one or more of the robot's kinematic arms (either the passive, “set up” portions or the actively controlled, manipulator portions) to cure the actual or near collision condition and avoid further collisions. In one aspect, if the operator is viewing a synthetic view that corresponds to the endoscope's field of view, the synthetic view may be automatically changed to show a collision point if a collision warning or actual collision is occurring.


In an embodiment, the location of a patient and/or portions of the patient's tissue structures (e.g., from preoperative imaging or by other suitable method of registering tissue structure locations) may be provided to the system, and registered patient location data may be to detect, warn, and display actual or potential collisions between the robot and the patient or designated tissue structures in the patient. Collisions may be detected as described above.


Also, in an embodiment, a visual, audio, or other indicator may be provided to assist in reducing or correcting a collision state. For example, for the warning situation described above, information may be provided to a surgeon to aid the surgeon in avoiding a collision. For example, a visual indicator may provide information about a movement direction in which a collision might occur, or may indicate a movement direction for the surgeon to make in order to avoid or cure a collision.


Lost Tool Recovery


In minimally invasive surgery, it is possible for instruments to be positioned outside the endoscopic camera's view volume. This possibility can result in situations where the tool is effectively lost, since the surgeon does not necessarily know how to move the endoscope to bring the instrument back into view, or how to move the instrument into the endoscope's field of view. Moreover, the situation may compromise patient safety, since the surgeon is able to move an instrument which cannot be observed.


The synthetic image 120 provides a solution to this problem by presenting the surgeon with a broader view of the endoscope's view volume 130, along with an accurate depiction of the position of each tool 124. Such a broader view and tool depiction may be provided from various points of view. In an embodiment, the broad view and tool depictions are provided from the same point of view or direction as the endoscope field of view. By providing a broad view in this direction, the surgeon will be able to retain the intuitive tool control movement he or she normally experiences when viewing the real endoscopic image while moving tools into the proper position so that the tool is back in the view volume 130. Alternatively, the view volume 130 may be viewed from other angles, allowing a surgeon to have a different perspective of what the endoscope 126 is viewing. As examples, FIGS. 8 and 9 show three different views, taken at different angles and pans, of views that may be shown for the synthetic image 120. Although the lower part of FIG. 8 shows an actual image, a synthetic image 120 may be provided from the same direction, and would look similar except that synthetic tools would be shown instead of video feed of the actual tools. The view established by the field of view is shown in the lower part of FIG. 8, and a view taken from a front side of the synthetic image—zoomed outward to show much of the patient side cart—is shown in the top of FIG. 8. A view taken slightly rearward and upward of the direction of the field of view of the endoscope, and zoomed outward to show the view volume 130, is shown in FIG. 9. This slight variation in view provides a good perspective of where the tools 124 are with respect to the view volume 130. A surgeon may toggle between a view consistent with the field of view and one just off from the field of view, such as shown in FIG. 9. To this end, a controller or other device may be provided for allowing a surgeon to toggle between different views of the synthetic image 120. Alternatively, a separate controller or the master controller may be utilized to allow infinite positioning (e.g., various pan, tilt, roll, dolly, truck, crane, and zoom image movements) of the synthetic image 120.



FIG. 12 is a flow chart representing a process for lost tool recovery in accordance with an embodiment. The process begins at 1200. At 1202, the synthetic image 120 is generated as described above. At 1204, the patient side cart, or the robot, is moved.


At 1206, a determination is made whether one or more of the tools is outside of the field of view. If not, the process loops back to 1204. If one or more of the tools is outside of the field of view, then the process may move to 1208, where a synthetic image is shown. The synthetic image may or may not be automatically shown; the synthetic image display may be selected by a surgeon. To this end, 1208 may be done as a result of a request by the surgeon or another operator, and may or may not be triggered by a tool being out of the field of view. If desired, however, a synthetic image may be automatically shown as a result of a loss of an image of the tool. In such an embodiment, however, it may be desirable to show the synthetic image in a tile window in addition to the field of view, instead of taking the field of view away from the surgeon.


If the missing tool display option is available, the synthetic view 120 may be requested or otherwise provided in 1208. The synthetic image provided in 1208 may be, as described above, substantially the same as the field of view of the endoscope 126 or any number of perspectives of the modeled system. If a desired angle is not shown, then a surgeon may elect at 1210 to show a different view. If the surgeon elects to show a different view, then 1210 branches to 1212, where the synthetic image 120 is, e.g., rotated to show a different view. If desired, as part of this movement, the synthetic image may rotate in space so that the surgeon may get an idea of the position from which the view started relative to the position where the view is going. In addition, in accordance with an embodiment, when a view of the synthetic image 120 is inconsistent with the same point of view as the field of view, a warning message or other indicator may be provided to the surgeon so that the surgeon may understand that he or she is looking at the view volume 130 from a direction that is different than the direction of the field of view.


If the surgeon did not request a different view in 1210, then the process loops back to 1204.


As described above, the synthetic image 120 provides an image of the patient side cart that is larger than and outside of the view volume 130. Thus, even if taken along the same point of view as the field of the view of the endoscope 126, the surgeon may zoom outward so that tools that are just outside the view volume 130 may be seen. The surgeon may then move these tools or the endoscope to the desired position so that they are within the field of view.


Mixed Video and Rendered View


As described above, there are a number of ways in which the system may present the synthetic image 120 of the robot to the surgeon. A first option, described with respect to FIG. 8, includes a tile window 204 showing a synthetic view above the field of view image 202, with both shown at the same time. Another option, shown in FIG. 9, shows only the synthetic image 120.


In accordance with an embodiment, a third option is provided in which a video display from an endoscope is superimposed over the synthetic image 120, with the positions matched, so that the video image is rendered in the context of the synthetic image 120 of the entire patient side cart. This view provides relative positions of the components of the patient cart for the surgeon, and allows the surgeon to understand where the surgeon is with respect to space. The view is also well suited when transitioning between a pure video display and a pure synthetic image 120. During the transition, the surgeon can relate respective positions of the robot and the video image from the endoscope.


A simplified version of this feature is shown in FIG. 13, where an image within the field of view 300 is projected over a window tile 306 that includes the synthetic image 120. The field of view image 300 includes two tools 302, 304 performing an operation. The window tile 306 extends the view provided by the field of view 300, and additional sections of the tools 302,304—indicated by the reference numerals 308,310, respectively—are provided. The surgeon may zoom in and out to provide additional information about the location of the tools with respect to other parts of the patient side cart. In addition, the features described with respect to the embodiment shown in FIG. 13 may be utilized to find the lost tool that is just outside the field of view, for example, in the window tile 306, but not in the field of view 300.


Visual Troubleshooting Indicator


In accordance with an embodiment, instead of or in addition to the synthetic image 120, the modeling data 104 may be utilized to project a image other than a visual representation of portions of the patient side cart. For example, using the position information provided by the tool tracking component 90 and/or the kinematic component 92, the modeling component 108 may display a portion of the synthetic image 120 in a different color, or it may display text on a portion of the synthetic image or instead of the synthetic image. In such an embodiment, the text may be superimposed over the actual tools in a field of view so as to focus attention on that tool or to provide other information. As an example, for the tool 304 in FIG. 13, the modeling component 108 may be utilized to display a text message “closed” 320 collocated over the video image of the tool 304 to indicate that the clamp for the tool is closed. The camera information, described above, permits the creation of a 3-D stereo rendering that may be superimposed on the stereo view of the tool 304 from the image capture device. Error messages may also be provided.



FIG. 14 is a flow chart representing a process for displaying information utilizing the modeling component 108 in accordance with an embodiment. Beginning at 1400, the location of the components of the patient side cart is determined, for example, the location of the tools 124. At 1402, the modeling component 108 is aligned with the tool as described above. At 1404, the desired information is displayed over the tool. For example, as described above, words may be displayed over the tool. In addition, if desired, information may be displayed around or adjacent to a tool or other feature.


As can be understood, to superimpose a message over actual tools in the field of view, the modeling data 104 need only include information about the outer perimeter of the tools. The other components of the patient side cart are not needed for this embodiment.


Communication Aid


The synthetic image 120 may be useful in providing a remote image of the operation of the patient side cart. For example, in some situations, an individual remote from the patient side cart may desire to view operation of the patient side cart. In such a situation, the synthetic image 120 may be rendered at both the viewer 32 and a remote display (e.g., the display 84). In such a situation, in accordance with one embodiment, the modeling data may be maintained all at one location, with the synthetic image 120 sent to a remote location for display at the remote location.


In an alternate embodiment, position and orientation information provided by the tool tracking component 90 and/or the kinematic component 92 may be sent to a remote computer. The remote computer, in turn, includes a modeling component 108 and the modeling data 104. In this embodiment, the synthetic image 120 is generated at the remote location in a separate operation from producing the synthetic image 120 for the viewer 32.


Being able to provide a synthetic image 120 in remote locations permits an operating surgeon viewing the surgeon's console to communicate with a surgical assistant viewing an assistant monitor. In addition, a student surgeon at one surgeon console may communicate with a remote proctor at another surgeon console.


In accordance with another embodiment, a remote user or proctor may have controls for movement of a synthetic image, such as a synthetic image 120. The movement of the synthetic image may be watched by a surgeon or student at the surgeon console, permitting the user to learn surgical procedures and motions, and to mimic those motions with the surgeon or student's controls (and thus the tools).


Range of Motion Limits


The linkages for the robotic arm assemblies of the patient side cart have a limited range of movement, limiting the movement of the tools supported by each arm or linkage. When the robot for a patient encounters range of motion limits, it is not always obvious to a surgeon (new or experienced) why the robot is not able to continue moving. In a telesurgical system, there are typically two sources of range of motion limits: joint limits of the master manipulator and joint limits of the slave manipulator.


In accordance with an embodiment, the modeling component 108 generates a signal to indicate that a limit of the range of movement for a tool is approaching. The signal may be used, for example, to generate a visual cue to the surgeon, such as color coding of the part(s) that have reached a limit. Alternatively, the limit may be represented with synthetic geometry as a virtual wall 340 (FIG. 6), which may be shown with the synthetic model 120, or may alternately be superimposed over the field of view. The virtual wall 340 is for the right-most tool 124, and it may be shown as concave, flat, or otherwise shaped to match the curvature of a range of motion. The virtual wall 340 is displayed in a position and direction that is perpendicular to the impeded motion direction of the instrument tip.


Other variations are within the spirit of the present invention. Thus, while the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative constructions, a certain illustrated embodiment thereof is shown in the drawings and has been described above in detail. It should be understood, however, that there is no intention to limit the invention to the specific form or forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, alternative constructions, and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention, as defined in the appended claims.


All references, including publications, patent applications, and patents, cited herein are hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each reference were individually and specifically indicated to be incorporated by reference and were set forth in its entirety herein.


The use of the terms “a” and “an” and “the” and similar referents in the context of describing the invention (especially in the context of the following claims) are to be construed to cover both the singular and the plural, unless otherwise indicated herein or clearly contradicted by context. The terms “comprising,” “having,” “including,” and “containing” are to be construed as open-ended terms (i.e., meaning “including, but not limited to,”) unless otherwise noted. The term “connected” is to be construed as partly or wholly contained within, attached to, or joined together, even if there is something intervening. Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, unless otherwise indicated herein, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g., “such as”) provided herein, is intended merely to better illuminate embodiments of the invention and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the invention unless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element as essential to the practice of the invention.


Preferred embodiments of this invention are described herein, including the best mode known to the inventors for carrying out the invention. Variations of those preferred embodiments may become apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the foregoing description. The inventors expect skilled artisans to employ such variations as appropriate, and the inventors intend for the invention to be practiced otherwise than as specifically described herein. Accordingly, this invention includes all modifications and equivalents of the subject matter recited in the claims appended hereto as permitted by applicable law. Moreover, any combination of the above-described elements in all possible variations thereof is encompassed by the invention unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context.

Claims
  • 1. A system comprising: a first robotic arm adapted to support and move a tool;a second robotic arm adapted to support and move a camera;an input device;a display; anda processor configured to: in a first mode, command the first robotic arm to move the camera in response to a first input received from the input device to capture an image of the tool, and present the image as a displayed image on the display; andin a second mode, display a synthetic image of the first robotic arm in a boundary area around the captured image on the display, and in response to a second input, change a size of the boundary area relative a size of the displayed image.
  • 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the second input is received at the input device.
  • 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first input comprises an interaction with the input device, and wherein the second input comprises the interaction with the input device.
  • 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the image is of a surgical site, wherein in the first mode the interaction causes the camera to move away from the surgical site, and wherein in the second mode the interaction causes the size of the boundary area to increase and causes the size of the displayed image to decrease.
  • 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the synthetic image is generated via a synthetic imaging component, and wherein in the second mode the interaction increases a field of view of the synthetic imaging component.
  • 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the second input is received at a second input device.
  • 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to, in a third mode, zoom the image captured by the camera in response to a third input at the second input device.
  • 8. The system of claim 7, wherein the second input comprises an interaction with the second input device, and the third input comprises the interaction with the second input device.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/161,204 (filed Oct. 16, 2018) which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/629,533 (filed Jun. 21, 2017) which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/415,354 (filed Mar. 31, 2009) which is a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/478,531 (filed Jun. 29, 2006) and a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/163,087 (filed Jun. 27, 2008), all of which are incorporate herein by reference in their entireties.

US Referenced Citations (531)
Number Name Date Kind
3628535 Ostrowsky et al. Dec 1971 A
3818284 Deversterre et al. Jun 1974 A
3890552 Devol et al. Jun 1975 A
3905215 Wright Sep 1975 A
3923166 Fletcher et al. Dec 1975 A
4150326 Engelberger et al. Apr 1979 A
4349837 Hinds Sep 1982 A
4577621 Patel Mar 1986 A
4588348 Beni et al. May 1986 A
4644237 Frushour et al. Feb 1987 A
4672963 Barken Jun 1987 A
4673988 Jansson et al. Jun 1987 A
4722056 Roberts et al. Jan 1988 A
4759074 Iadipaolo et al. Jul 1988 A
4762455 Coughlan et al. Aug 1988 A
4762456 Nelson Aug 1988 A
4791934 Brunnett Dec 1988 A
4815450 Patel Mar 1989 A
4831549 Red et al. May 1989 A
4833383 Skarr et al. May 1989 A
4837703 Kakazu et al. Jun 1989 A
4837734 Ichikawa et al. Jun 1989 A
4839838 Labiche et al. Jun 1989 A
4853874 Iwamoto et al. Aug 1989 A
4858149 Quarendon Aug 1989 A
4860215 Seraji Aug 1989 A
4863133 Bonnell Sep 1989 A
4891767 Rzasa et al. Jan 1990 A
4942539 Mcgee et al. Jul 1990 A
4979949 Matsen, III et al. Dec 1990 A
4984157 Cline et al. Jan 1991 A
4989253 Liang et al. Jan 1991 A
5046022 Conway et al. Sep 1991 A
5053976 Nose et al. Oct 1991 A
5079699 Tuy et al. Jan 1992 A
5086401 Glassman et al. Feb 1992 A
5098426 Sklar et al. Mar 1992 A
5099846 Hardy Mar 1992 A
5142930 Allen et al. Sep 1992 A
5170347 Tuy et al. Dec 1992 A
5174276 Crockard Dec 1992 A
5176702 Bales et al. Jan 1993 A
5182641 Diner et al. Jan 1993 A
5184009 Wright et al. Feb 1993 A
5184601 Putman Feb 1993 A
5187796 Wang et al. Feb 1993 A
5217003 Wilk Jun 1993 A
5230338 Allen et al. Jul 1993 A
5230623 Guthrie et al. Jul 1993 A
5235510 Yamada et al. Aug 1993 A
5239246 Kim Aug 1993 A
5251127 Raab Oct 1993 A
5251611 Zehel et al. Oct 1993 A
5257203 Riley et al. Oct 1993 A
5261404 Mick et al. Nov 1993 A
5266875 Slotine et al. Nov 1993 A
5279309 Taylor et al. Jan 1994 A
5299288 Glassman et al. Mar 1994 A
5313306 Kuban et al. May 1994 A
5321353 Furness Jun 1994 A
5337733 Bauerfeind et al. Aug 1994 A
5341950 Sinz Aug 1994 A
5343385 Joskowicz et al. Aug 1994 A
5368015 Wilk Nov 1994 A
5368428 Hussey et al. Nov 1994 A
5382885 Salcudean et al. Jan 1995 A
5397323 Taylor et al. Mar 1995 A
5402801 Taylor Apr 1995 A
5408409 Glassman et al. Apr 1995 A
5417210 Funda et al. May 1995 A
5430643 Seraji Jul 1995 A
5445166 Taylor et al. Aug 1995 A
5454827 Aust et al. Oct 1995 A
5474571 Lang Dec 1995 A
5482029 Sekiguchi et al. Jan 1996 A
5493595 Schoolman Feb 1996 A
5503320 Webster et al. Apr 1996 A
5515478 Wang May 1996 A
5524180 Wang et al. Jun 1996 A
5528955 Hannaford et al. Jun 1996 A
5531742 Barken Jul 1996 A
5551432 Iezzi Sep 1996 A
5553198 Wang et al. Sep 1996 A
5572999 Funda et al. Nov 1996 A
5601549 Miyagi Feb 1997 A
5617858 Taverna et al. Apr 1997 A
5624390 Van Dyne Apr 1997 A
5624398 Smith et al. Apr 1997 A
5631973 Green May 1997 A
5638819 Manwaring et al. Jun 1997 A
5657429 Wang et al. Aug 1997 A
5695500 Taylor et al. Dec 1997 A
5704897 Truppe Jan 1998 A
5715729 Toyama et al. Feb 1998 A
5737500 Seraji et al. Apr 1998 A
5748767 Raab May 1998 A
5749362 Funda et al. May 1998 A
5754741 Wang et al. May 1998 A
5755725 Druais May 1998 A
5759151 Sturges Jun 1998 A
5759153 Webler et al. Jun 1998 A
5762458 Wang et al. Jun 1998 A
5765561 Chen et al. Jun 1998 A
5784542 Ohm et al. Jul 1998 A
5788688 Bauer et al. Aug 1998 A
5791231 Cohn et al. Aug 1998 A
5792135 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5797849 Vesely et al. Aug 1998 A
5797900 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5807377 Madhani et al. Sep 1998 A
5808665 Green et al. Sep 1998 A
5810008 Dekel et al. Sep 1998 A
5810880 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5814038 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5815640 Wang et al. Sep 1998 A
5817022 Vesely Oct 1998 A
5820545 Arbter et al. Oct 1998 A
5820623 Ng Oct 1998 A
5831408 Jacobus et al. Nov 1998 A
5835693 Lynch et al. Nov 1998 A
5836880 Pratt Nov 1998 A
5841950 Wang et al. Nov 1998 A
5842473 Fenster et al. Dec 1998 A
5842993 Eichelberger et al. Dec 1998 A
5853367 Chalek et al. Dec 1998 A
5855553 Tajima et al. Jan 1999 A
5855583 Wang et al. Jan 1999 A
5859934 Green Jan 1999 A
5876325 Mizuno et al. Mar 1999 A
5877819 Branson Mar 1999 A
5878193 Wang et al. Mar 1999 A
5887121 Funda et al. Mar 1999 A
5907664 Wang et al. May 1999 A
5911036 Wright et al. Jun 1999 A
5931832 Jensen Aug 1999 A
5938678 Zirps et al. Aug 1999 A
5950629 Taylor et al. Sep 1999 A
5964707 Fenster et al. Oct 1999 A
5971976 Wang et al. Oct 1999 A
5980460 Oestensen et al. Nov 1999 A
5980461 Rajan Nov 1999 A
5987591 Jyumonji Nov 1999 A
5993390 Savord et al. Nov 1999 A
5993391 Kamiyama Nov 1999 A
5999662 Burt et al. Dec 1999 A
6019724 Gronningsaeter et al. Feb 2000 A
6036637 Kudo Mar 2000 A
6059718 Taniguchi et al. May 2000 A
6063095 Wang et al. May 2000 A
6072466 Shah et al. Jun 2000 A
6083170 Ben-Haim Jul 2000 A
6084371 Kress et al. Jul 2000 A
6096025 Borders Aug 2000 A
6115053 Perlin Sep 2000 A
6120433 Mizuno et al. Sep 2000 A
6129670 Burdette et al. Oct 2000 A
6184868 Shahoian et al. Feb 2001 B1
6196081 Yau Mar 2001 B1
6201984 Funda et al. Mar 2001 B1
6204620 McGee et al. Mar 2001 B1
6224542 Chang et al. May 2001 B1
6226566 Funda et al. May 2001 B1
6241725 Cosman Jun 2001 B1
6243624 Wu et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246200 Blumenkranz et al. Jun 2001 B1
6256529 Holupka et al. Jul 2001 B1
6270453 Sakai Aug 2001 B1
6292712 Bullen Sep 2001 B1
6307285 Delson et al. Oct 2001 B1
6312435 Wallace et al. Nov 2001 B1
6325808 Bernard et al. Dec 2001 B1
6330837 Charles et al. Dec 2001 B1
6331181 Tierney et al. Dec 2001 B1
6342889 Callahan Jan 2002 B1
6358749 Orthman Mar 2002 B1
6371909 Hoeg et al. Apr 2002 B1
6371952 Madhani et al. Apr 2002 B1
6394998 Wallace et al. May 2002 B1
6398726 Ramans et al. Jun 2002 B1
6402737 Tajima et al. Jun 2002 B1
6424885 Niemeyer et al. Jul 2002 B1
6425865 Salcudean et al. Jul 2002 B1
6434416 Mizoguchi et al. Aug 2002 B1
6436107 Wang et al. Aug 2002 B1
6442417 Shahidi et al. Aug 2002 B1
6456901 Xi et al. Sep 2002 B1
6459926 Nowlin et al. Oct 2002 B1
6468265 Evans et al. Oct 2002 B1
6491701 Tierney et al. Dec 2002 B2
6493608 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2002 B1
6522906 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Feb 2003 B1
6522908 Miyashita et al. Feb 2003 B1
6547782 Taylor Apr 2003 B1
6550757 Sesek Apr 2003 B2
6569084 Mizuno et al. May 2003 B1
6574355 Green Jun 2003 B2
6594522 Korenaga Jul 2003 B1
6594552 Nowlin et al. Jul 2003 B1
6599247 Stetten Jul 2003 B1
6602185 Uchikubo Aug 2003 B1
6620173 Gerbi et al. Sep 2003 B2
6642836 Wang et al. Nov 2003 B1
6643563 Hosek et al. Nov 2003 B2
6645196 Nixon et al. Nov 2003 B1
6648816 Irion et al. Nov 2003 B2
6654031 Ito et al. Nov 2003 B1
6656110 Irion et al. Dec 2003 B1
6659939 Moll et al. Dec 2003 B2
6665554 Charles et al. Dec 2003 B1
6671581 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2003 B2
6676669 Charles et al. Jan 2004 B2
6699177 Wang et al. Mar 2004 B1
6702736 Chen et al. Mar 2004 B2
6714839 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Mar 2004 B2
6765569 Neumann et al. Jul 2004 B2
6770081 Cooper et al. Aug 2004 B1
6786896 Madhani et al. Sep 2004 B1
6799065 Niemeyer Sep 2004 B1
6817973 Merril et al. Nov 2004 B2
6817974 Cooper et al. Nov 2004 B2
6827712 Tovey et al. Dec 2004 B2
6837883 Moll et al. Jan 2005 B2
6847922 Wampler, II Jan 2005 B1
6852107 Wang et al. Feb 2005 B2
6866671 Tierney et al. Mar 2005 B2
6876891 Schuler et al. Apr 2005 B1
6899672 Chin et al. May 2005 B2
6905460 Wang et al. Jun 2005 B2
6926709 Bieger et al. Aug 2005 B2
6960162 Saadat et al. Nov 2005 B2
6984203 Tartaglia et al. Jan 2006 B2
6991627 Madhani et al. Jan 2006 B2
7041053 Miyake May 2006 B2
7107090 Salisbury et al. Sep 2006 B2
7107124 Green Sep 2006 B2
7118582 Wang et al. Oct 2006 B1
7144367 Chen et al. Dec 2006 B2
7155315 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2006 B2
7155316 Sutherland et al. Dec 2006 B2
7181315 Watanabe et al. Feb 2007 B2
7194118 Harris et al. Mar 2007 B1
7211978 Chang et al. May 2007 B2
7297142 Brock Nov 2007 B2
7302288 Schellenberg et al. Nov 2007 B1
7413565 Wang et al. Aug 2008 B2
7491198 Kockro Feb 2009 B2
7493153 Ahmed et al. Feb 2009 B2
7574250 Niemeyer Aug 2009 B2
7725214 Diolaiti May 2010 B2
7806891 Nowlin Oct 2010 B2
7819859 Prisco et al. Oct 2010 B2
7865266 Moll et al. Jan 2011 B2
7963913 Devengenzo et al. Jun 2011 B2
7967813 Cooper et al. Jun 2011 B2
7979157 Anvari Jul 2011 B2
7996110 Lipow et al. Aug 2011 B2
7998058 Kura et al. Aug 2011 B2
8004229 Nowlin et al. Aug 2011 B2
8005571 Sutherland et al. Aug 2011 B2
8016749 Clerc et al. Sep 2011 B2
8062288 Cooper et al. Nov 2011 B2
8108072 Zhao et al. Jan 2012 B2
8120301 Goldberg et al. Feb 2012 B2
8130907 Maurer, Jr. et al. Mar 2012 B2
8142447 Cooper et al. Mar 2012 B2
8155479 Hoffman et al. Apr 2012 B2
8170716 Coste-Maniere et al. May 2012 B2
8175861 Huang et al. May 2012 B2
8221304 Shioda et al. Jul 2012 B2
8244443 Oshima et al. Aug 2012 B2
8256319 Cooper et al. Sep 2012 B2
8306656 Schaible et al. Nov 2012 B1
8315720 Mohr et al. Nov 2012 B2
8335590 Costa et al. Dec 2012 B2
8398541 Dimaio et al. Mar 2013 B2
8419717 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2013 B2
8541970 Nowlin et al. Sep 2013 B2
8554368 Fielding et al. Oct 2013 B2
8597280 Cooper et al. Dec 2013 B2
8620473 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2013 B2
8624537 Nowlin et al. Jan 2014 B2
8749189 Nowlin et al. Jun 2014 B2
8749190 Nowlin et al. Jun 2014 B2
8786241 Nowlin et al. Jul 2014 B2
8801601 Prisco et al. Aug 2014 B2
8816628 Nowlin et al. Aug 2014 B2
8823308 Nowlin et al. Sep 2014 B2
8864652 Diolaiti et al. Oct 2014 B2
8903546 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2014 B2
8918211 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2014 B2
8944070 Guthart et al. Feb 2015 B2
9084623 Gomez et al. Jul 2015 B2
9089256 Tognaccini et al. Jul 2015 B2
9101397 Guthart et al. Aug 2015 B2
9138129 Diolaiti Sep 2015 B2
9232984 Guthart et al. Jan 2016 B2
9259283 Ogawa et al. Feb 2016 B2
9333042 Diolaiti et al. May 2016 B2
9345387 Larkin May 2016 B2
9387048 Donhowe et al. Jul 2016 B2
9469034 Diolaiti et al. Oct 2016 B2
9492927 Diolaiti et al. Nov 2016 B2
9516996 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2016 B2
9565990 Lee et al. Feb 2017 B2
9622826 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2017 B2
9629520 Diolaiti Apr 2017 B2
9717563 Tognaccini et al. Aug 2017 B2
9718190 Larkin et al. Aug 2017 B2
9788909 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 B2
9789608 Itkowitz et al. Oct 2017 B2
9795446 Dimaio et al. Oct 2017 B2
9801690 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 B2
9901408 Larkin Feb 2018 B2
9949798 Weir et al. Apr 2018 B2
9956044 Gomez et al. May 2018 B2
10008017 Itkowitz et al. Jun 2018 B2
10137575 Itkowitz et al. Nov 2018 B2
10188472 Diolaiti et al. Jan 2019 B2
10258425 Mustufa et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271909 Guthart et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271912 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271915 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 B2
10282881 Itkowitz et al. May 2019 B2
10368952 Tognaccini et al. Aug 2019 B2
10433919 Guthart et al. Oct 2019 B2
10507066 DiMaio et al. Dec 2019 B2
10537994 Diolaiti et al. Jan 2020 B2
10695136 Larkin Jun 2020 B2
10730187 Larkin et al. Aug 2020 B2
10737394 Itkowitz et al. Aug 2020 B2
10772689 Gomez et al. Sep 2020 B2
10773388 Larkin et al. Sep 2020 B2
10828774 Diolaiti et al. Nov 2020 B2
10959798 Diolaiti et al. Mar 2021 B2
10984567 Itkowitz et al. Apr 2021 B2
11382702 Tognaccini et al. Jul 2022 B2
11389255 DiMaio et al. Jul 2022 B2
11399908 Diolaiti et al. Aug 2022 B2
11432888 Diolaiti et al. Sep 2022 B2
20010035871 Bieger et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020044104 Friedrich et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020045888 Ramans et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020089544 Jahn et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020120188 Brock et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020156345 Eppler et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020193800 Kienzle et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030023347 Konno et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030032878 Shahidi Feb 2003 A1
20030055410 Evans et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030060927 Gerbi et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030109780 Coste-Maniere et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030114730 Hale et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030144649 Ghodoussi et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030167103 Tang et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030225479 Waled Dec 2003 A1
20040024311 Quaid et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040034283 Quaid et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040039485 Niemeyer et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040044295 Reinert et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040046711 Triebfuerst Mar 2004 A1
20040046916 Lyu et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040049205 Lee et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040077940 Kienzle et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040106916 Quaid et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040138700 Cooper et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040176751 Weitzner et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040189675 Pretlove et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040210105 Hale et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040225183 Michlitsch et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040238732 State et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040243147 Lipow Dec 2004 A1
20040249508 Suita et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040254454 Kockro Dec 2004 A1
20040254679 Nagasaka Dec 2004 A1
20050022158 Launay et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050054895 Hoeg et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050059960 Simaan et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050096502 Khalili May 2005 A1
20050096892 Watanabe et al. May 2005 A1
20050107680 Kopf et al. May 2005 A1
20050113640 Saadat et al. May 2005 A1
20050166413 Crampton et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050203380 Sauer et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050228365 Wang et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050251113 Kienzle, III Nov 2005 A1
20050267359 Hussaini et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050273198 Bischoff Dec 2005 A1
20060013523 Childlers et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060058988 Defranoux et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060079108 McCoy Apr 2006 A1
20060142657 Quaid et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060149129 Watts et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161045 Merril et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161138 Orban et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060178559 Kumar et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060258938 Hoffman et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060261770 Kishi et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060293592 Jensen Dec 2006 A1
20070016174 Millman et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070021738 Hasser et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070038080 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070060879 Weitzner et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070071310 Kobayashi et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070081714 Wallack et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070106307 Bodduluri et al. May 2007 A1
20070135803 Belson Jun 2007 A1
20070138992 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070142825 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070142968 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070144298 Miller Jun 2007 A1
20070151389 Prisco et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070156019 Larkin et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070156285 Sillman et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070167801 Webler et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070177009 Bayer et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070197896 Moll et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070229015 Yoshida et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070255454 Dariush Nov 2007 A1
20070265491 Krag et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070270650 Eno et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070270685 Kang et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070283970 Mohr et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070287884 Schena Dec 2007 A1
20070287889 Mohr Dec 2007 A1
20070287992 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070296366 Quaid et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070299387 Williams et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080004603 Larkin et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080033240 Hoffman et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080045800 Farr Feb 2008 A2
20080051629 Sugiyama et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080064921 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080064927 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080064931 Schena et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065097 Duval et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065098 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065099 Cooper et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065100 Larkin Mar 2008 A1
20080065101 Larkin Mar 2008 A1
20080065102 Cooper Mar 2008 A1
20080065104 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065105 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065106 Larkin Mar 2008 A1
20080065107 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065110 Duval et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071288 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071289 Cooper et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071290 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071291 Duval et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080081992 Kagermeier Apr 2008 A1
20080118115 Williamson et al. May 2008 A1
20080119824 Weitzner et al. May 2008 A1
20080140087 Barbagli Jun 2008 A1
20080151041 Shafer et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080161830 Sutherland et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080188986 Hoppe Aug 2008 A1
20080243142 Gildenberg Oct 2008 A1
20080247506 Maschke Oct 2008 A1
20080287963 Rogers et al. Nov 2008 A1
20090005640 Fehre et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090012531 Quaid et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090024142 Ruiz Morales Jan 2009 A1
20090088634 Zhao et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090105750 Price et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090192523 Larkin et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090192524 Itkowitz et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090228145 Hodgson et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090248036 Hoffman et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090259105 Miyano et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090326322 Diolaiti Dec 2009 A1
20090326552 Diolaiti Dec 2009 A1
20090326553 Mustufa et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090326711 Chang et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100004505 Umemoto et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100036198 Tacchino et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100106356 Trepagnier et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100169815 Zhao et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100198232 Diolaiti Aug 2010 A1
20100228264 Robinson et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100249657 Nycz et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100317965 Itkowitz et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100328363 Nakanishi Dec 2010 A1
20100331855 Zhao et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100331856 Carlson et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100332033 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110071675 Wells et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110196199 Donhowe et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110258568 Pandurangan et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110290856 Shelton, IV et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110313573 Schreiber et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120132450 Timm et al. May 2012 A1
20120154564 Hoffman et al. Jun 2012 A1
20130178868 Roh Jul 2013 A1
20130245375 Dimaio et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130289767 Lim et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130289768 Yeung et al. Oct 2013 A1
20140052150 Taylor et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140055489 Itkowitz et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140135792 Larkin et al. May 2014 A1
20140232824 Dimaio et al. Aug 2014 A1
20150032126 Nowlin et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150051733 Nowlin et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150150639 Diolaiti et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150182287 Guthart et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150297300 Gomez et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150366625 Tognaccini et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160045272 Diolaiti et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160235486 Larkin Aug 2016 A1
20160242860 Diolaiti et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160374767 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2016 A1
20170209232 Larkin et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170210012 Larkin et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170305016 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 A1
20180206924 Gomez et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180297206 Larkin et al. Oct 2018 A1
20190047154 Itkowitz et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190090967 Guthart et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190110847 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 A1
20190201134 Diolaiti et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190201152 Diolaiti et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190209262 Mustufa et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190213770 Itkowitz et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190298463 Tognaccini et al. Oct 2019 A1
20200085520 DiMaio et al. Mar 2020 A1
20200094400 Diolaiti Mar 2020 A1
20200331147 Larkin et al. Oct 2020 A1
20210059780 Sutherland et al. Mar 2021 A1
20210153964 Diolaiti et al. May 2021 A1
20210256749 Itkowitz et al. Aug 2021 A1
20210290326 Diolaiti et al. Sep 2021 A1
20220296317 DiMaio et al. Sep 2022 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (93)
Number Date Country
1846181 Oct 2006 CN
1879574 Dec 2006 CN
101160104 Apr 2008 CN
101184429 May 2008 CN
101530347 Sep 2009 CN
101594816 Dec 2009 CN
101610712 Dec 2009 CN
514584 Nov 1992 EP
0646358 Apr 1995 EP
812662 Dec 1997 EP
1125557 Aug 2001 EP
0732082 Sep 2002 EP
1310844 May 2003 EP
1424173 Jun 2004 EP
1269389 Sep 2005 EP
1131004 Oct 2009 EP
H01280449 Nov 1989 JP
H01310875 Dec 1989 JP
H04231034 Aug 1992 JP
H07184923 Jul 1995 JP
H07265321 Oct 1995 JP
H0889506 Apr 1996 JP
H08107875 Apr 1996 JP
H08132372 May 1996 JP
H08154321 Jun 1996 JP
H08215211 Aug 1996 JP
H08224241 Sep 1996 JP
H08275958 Oct 1996 JP
H08299363 Nov 1996 JP
H09141580 Jun 1997 JP
H10146341 Jun 1998 JP
H11309 Jan 1999 JP
2000500679 Jan 2000 JP
2000300579 Oct 2000 JP
2001000448 Jan 2001 JP
2001061850 Mar 2001 JP
2001104333 Apr 2001 JP
2001202531 Jul 2001 JP
2001287183 Oct 2001 JP
2002103258 Apr 2002 JP
2002287613 Oct 2002 JP
2003053684 Feb 2003 JP
2003300444 Oct 2003 JP
2003339725 Dec 2003 JP
2004105638 Apr 2004 JP
2004223128 Aug 2004 JP
2005110878 Apr 2005 JP
2005135278 May 2005 JP
2005303327 Oct 2005 JP
2005334650 Dec 2005 JP
2007029232 Feb 2007 JP
2007090481 Apr 2007 JP
2007508913 Apr 2007 JP
2007531553 Nov 2007 JP
2009006410 Jan 2009 JP
2009012106 Jan 2009 JP
2009039814 Feb 2009 JP
2009525097 Jul 2009 JP
2009537229 Oct 2009 JP
4883563 Feb 2012 JP
WO-9501757 Jan 1995 WO
WO-9507055 Mar 1995 WO
WO-9729690 Aug 1997 WO
WO-9743942 Nov 1997 WO
WO-9743943 Nov 1997 WO
WO-9823216 Jun 1998 WO
WO-0030548 Jun 2000 WO
WO-03061482 Jul 2003 WO
WO-2004014244 Feb 2004 WO
WO-2004114037 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2005037120 Apr 2005 WO
WO-2005039391 May 2005 WO
WO-2005043319 May 2005 WO
WO-2006079108 Jul 2006 WO
WO-2006091494 Aug 2006 WO
WO-2006124390 Nov 2006 WO
WO-2007005555 Jan 2007 WO
WO-2007012185 Feb 2007 WO
WO-2007030173 Mar 2007 WO
WO-2007047782 Apr 2007 WO
WO-2007088206 Aug 2007 WO
WO-2007088208 Aug 2007 WO
WO-2007136768 Nov 2007 WO
WO-2007146987 Dec 2007 WO
WO-2008002830 Jan 2008 WO
WO-2008065581 Jun 2008 WO
WO-2008094766 Aug 2008 WO
WO-2008103383 Aug 2008 WO
WO-2009034477 Mar 2009 WO
WO-2009037576 Mar 2009 WO
WO-2009044287 Apr 2009 WO
WO-2009158164 Dec 2009 WO
WO-2010039394 Apr 2010 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (376)
Entry
Azuma et al., “Recent Advances in Augmented Reality,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Dec. 2001, 14 pages.
Lievin et al., “Stereoscopic Augmented Reality System for Computer Assisted Surgery,” CARS 2001, Jun. 27-30, 2001, 5 pages.
Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/638,172, filed Jun. 29, 2017, 11 pages.
Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2019 for Korean Application No. 1020197022941 filed May 11, 2011, 14 pages.
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP21158299.4 dated May 21, 2021, 09 pages.
3D Slicer, http://slicer.org/welcome.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, p. 1; and Introduction, http:/slicer.org/intro/index.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, pp. 1-4.
Abolmaesumi, Purang et al., “A User Interface for Robot-Assisted Diagnostic Ultrasound,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Conference, 2001, pp. 1549-1554, vol. 2, IEEE.
Abolmaesumi, Purang et al., “Image Guided Control of a Robot for Medical Ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp. 11-23, vol. 18-lssue 1, IEEE.
Adams, Ludwig et al., “Computer-Assisted Surgery,” IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, May 1990, pp. 43-52, vol. 10—Issue 3, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ahlering, Thomas. E. et al., “Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins,” Urology, 2004, pp. 1224-1228, vol. 64 Issue 6, Elsevier Inc.
Alexander, Arthur D. Ill, “Impacts of Telemation on Modern Society,” Symposium on Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators, Centre for Mechanical Sciences 1st CISM IFToMM Symposium, Sep. 5-8, 1974, pp. 121-136, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Arai, Tatsuo et al., “Bilateral control for manipulators with different configurations,” IECON Inn Conference on Industrial Electronics Control and Instrumentation, Oct. 22-26, 1984, pp. 40-45, vol. 1.
Arun, K.S et al., “Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 698-700, Sep. 1987.
Askew R.S., et al., “Ground Control Testbed for Space Station Freedom Robot Manipulators,” IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1993, pp. 69-75.
Azuma, Ronald T., “A Survey of Augmented Reality,” Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1997, pp. 355-385, vol. 6—No. 4.
Bajura, Michael et al., “Merging Virtual Objects with the Real World: Seeing Ultrasound Imagery within the Patient,” Computer Graphics, Jul. 26, 1992, pp. 203-210, vol. 26, Issue 2, ACM Press.
Banovac, Filip et al., “Liver Tumor Biopsy in a Respiring Phantom with the Assistance of a Novel Electromagnetic Navigation Device,” 2002, pp. 200-207, Springer-Verlag.
Bartels, Richard H. et al., “An Introduction to Splines for use in Computer Graphics and Geometric Modeling,” 1987, 6 Pages total, Morgan kaufmann publishers, INC.
Bartels, Richard H. et al., “Solution of the Matrix Equation AX+XB=C,” Communications of the ACM, 1972, pp. 820-826, vol. 15-lssue 9, ACM Press.
Baumann, Roger, “Haptic Interface for Virtual Reality Based Laparoscopic Surgery Training Environment,” These No. 1734 Ecole Pholytechnique Federate de Lausanne, 1997, 104 Total Pages.
Bejczy, Antal K. et al., “Controlling Remote Manipulators through Kinesthetic Coupling,” Computers in Mechanical Engineering, 1983, pp. 48-60, vol. 1-Issue 1.
Ben Gayed, M. et al., “An Advanced Control Micromanipulator for Surgical Applications,” Systems Science, 1987, pp. 123-134, vol. 13.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A Compact Compliant Laparoscopic Endoscope Manipulator,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp. 1870-1875, vol. 2, IEEE.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A miniature Instrument Tip Force Sensor for Robot/Human Cooperative Micro surgical Manipulation with Enhanced Force Feedback,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp. 897-906, vol. 1935.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A miniature microsurgicai instrument tip force sensor for enhanced force feedback during robot-assisted manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2000, pp. 917-922, vol. 19-lssue 5, IEEE.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “Performance Evaluation of a Cooperative Manipulation Microsurgicai Assistant Robot Applied to Stapedotomy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2001, pp. 1426-1429, vol. 2208.
Besl, Paul J. et al., “A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 239-256, Feb. 1992.
Bettini, A. et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures: Experiments at Macro and Micro Scales,” IEEE Conference on Robots and Automation (ICRA '02), May 11-15, 2002, pp. 3354-3361, vol. 4, IEEE.
Bettini, A. et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 29-Nov. 3, 2001, pp. 1171-1176, vol. 2.
Bettini, Alessandro et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2004, pp. 953-966, vol. 20-lssue 6, IEEE.
Birkett, Desmond H., “Three-Dimensional Video Imaging Systems,” Chapter 1 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 7-11.
Boctor, Emad et al., “A Novel Closed Form Solution for Ultrasound Calibration,” IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), Arlington, VA, vol. 1, pp. 527-530, Apr. 15-18, 2004.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “A dual-armed robotic system for intraoperative ultrasound guided hepatic ablative therapy: a prospective study,” Proc of IEEE 2004 International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2004, pp. 2517-2522, vol. 3, IEEE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “A Rapid calibration method for registration and 3D tracking of ultrasound images using spatial localizer,” Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2003, pp. 521-532, vol. 5035, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “CISUS: An integrated 3D ultrasound system for IGT using a modular tracking API,” Proceedings of the SPIE, 2004, pp. 247-256, vol. 5367, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Development of a Robotically-Assisted 3-D Ultrasound System for Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumors,” 6th World Congress of the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, Abstract No. 167, 2004, pp. 46, vol. 6-Supplement 1, Taylor & Francis Health Science.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “PC Based system for calibration, Reconstruction Processing and Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data Based on a Magnetic-Field Position and Orientation Sensing System,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science-Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 2001, pp. 13-22, vol. 2074, Springer.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robot-assisted 3D strain imaging for monitoring thermal ablation of liver,” Annual congress of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES),Emerging Technology Lunch Poster TP004, 2005, pp. 240-241.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotic Strain Imaging for Monitoring Thermal Ablation of Liver,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention MICCAI, 2004, pp. 81-88, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotically assisted intraoperative ultrasound with application to ablative therapy of liver cancer,” Medical lmaging:Visuaiization, Image Guided Procedures, and Display, 2003, pp. 281-291, vol. 5029, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Tracked 3D ultrasound in radio-frequency liver ablation,” in Medical Imaging 2003:Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2003, pp. 174-182, vol. 5035, SPIE.
Borovoi, A.V., “Stability of a manipulator with force feedback,” Izv. An SSSR Mekhanika Tverdogo Teal, 1990, pp. 37-45, vol. 25—Issue 1, Allerton Press, Inc.
Boudet,Sylvie et al., “An Integrated Robotics and Medical Control Device to Quantify Atheromatous Plaques: Experiments on the Arteries of a Patient,” Proc of IEE/RSH International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1997, pp. 1533-1538, vol. 3.
Brown, Myron M. et al., “Advances in Computational Stereo,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2003, pp. 993-1008, vol. 25 Issue, IEEE.
Burdea, Grigore et al., “Dextrous Telerobotics with Force Feedback—an overview. Part 2: Control and Implementation,” Robotica, 1991, pp. 291-298, vol. 9.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Endoscopic Images to CT-Scans for Sinus Surgery,” Med Image Anal, 2004, pp. 413-421, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Stereo Images to 3D Surface Models,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robots and Systems, 2004, pp. 2581-2586, vol. 3, IEEE.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Navigating Inner Space: 3-D Assistance for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2005, pp. 5-26, vol. 52-lssue 1, Elsevier.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Principle and Practice of Real-Time Visual Tracking for Navigation and Mapping,” IEEE Workshop on Robotic Sensing: Robotics in the Automotive Industry, 2004, pp. 1-8, IEEE.
Bzostek, Andrew, “Computer-Integrated needle therapy systems: Implementation and Analysis,” Computer Science, 2005, 379 pages.
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “A Testbed System for Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Pattern Therapy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 1999, pp. 1098-1107, vol. 1679, Springer.
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “An automated system for precise percutaneous access of the renal collecting system,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 1997, pp. 299-308, vol. 1205, Springer-Verlag.
Bzostek, Andrew, “Image Guided Percutaneous Pattern Placement in Soft Tissue,” The Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Computer Science: Baltimore, 1997, pp. 2007-01-22.
Cadeddu, Jeffrey A. et al., “A Robotic System for Percutaneous Renal Access,” The Journal of Urology, 1997, pp. 1589-1593, vol. 158-lssue 4.
Cadeddu, Jeffrey et al., “A robotic system for percutaneous renal access incorporating a remote center of motion design,” Journal of Endourolog, 1998, S237, vol. 12.
Cannon, Jeremy W. et al., “Real-time three-dimensional ultrasound for guiding surgical tasks,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2003, pp. 82-90, vol. 8-No. 2, John Wiley & Sons.
Cao, Caroline L., et al., “Task and motion analysis in endoscopic surgery,” Submitted for Fifth Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teloperator Systems for the Winter Meeting of ASME, 1996, pp. 1-32.
Carr, J., “Surface reconstruction in 3D medical imaging,” PhD Thesis, Part 1, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996, 112 Pages.
Carr, J., “Surface reconstruction in 3D medical imaging,” PhD Thesis, Part 2, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996, 112 Pages.
Cash, David M. et al., “Incorporation of a laser range scanner into an image-guided surgical system,” The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 269-280, vol. 5029.
Chang, Jun Keun et al., “Intravascular micro active catheter for minimal invasive surgery,” 1st Annual International Conference on Microtechnologies in Medicine and Biology, 2000, pp. 243-246.
Chen, Homer H. “A Screw Motion Approach to Uniqueness Analysis of Head-Eye Geometry,” Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1991, pp. 145-151, IEEE.
Chinzei, Kiyoyuki et al., “MR Compatible Surgical Assist Robot: System Integration and Preliminary Feasibility Study,” in Proceedings of Third International Conference On Medical Imaging and Computer Assisted Surgery (MICCAI), 2000, pp. 921-930, vol. 1935, Springer-Verlag.
Choti, Michael A. et al., “Trends in Long Term Survival Following Liver Resection for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases,” Ana Surg, 2002, pp. 759-766, vol. 235-No. 6, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Choti, Michael A., “Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation,” Cancer Journal, 2000, pp. S291-S292, vol. 6-issue 4, Jones and Bartlett.
Choti, Michael A., “Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Resection and Ablation,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2002, pp. S197-S203, vol. 13-No. 9.
Christensen, B. et al., “Model based sensor directed remediation of underground storage tanks,” International Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, Apr. 1991, pp. 1377-1383, vol. 2. IEEE.
Christoforou, E.G. et al., “Robotic Arm for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Interventions,” 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Feb. 20-22, 2006, pp. 911-916.
Chung, Mathew et al., “Laparascopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Unresectable Hepatic Malignancies,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1020-1026, vol. 15-No. 9, Springer-Verlag.
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the Art in Surgical Robotics:Clinical Applications and Technology Challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001 [retrieved on Feb. 24, 2002], pp. 1-26.
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the art surgical robotics clinical applications and technology challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001, pp. 312-328, vol. 6; PART 6, John Wiley & Sons.
Cleary,K. et al., “Robotically-assisted spine nerve blocks,” Radiology, 2001, 1 page, vol. 221-No. 618.
Colgate J.E., “Power and Impedance Scaling in Bilateral Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento. California, Apr. 1991, vol. 3, pp. 2292-2297.
D'Angelica M., “Staging Laparoscopy for Potentially Respectable Noncolorectal,” Ann Surg Oncol, 2002, pp. 204-209, vol. 9-No. 2, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Daniilidis, Konstantinos, Hand-Eye Calibration Using Dual Quaternions, Int. J. of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 286-298, vol. 18 (3), Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, Brain L. et al., “A Robotic system for tkr surgery,” Proceedings of 3rd Annual North American Program on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS USA), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,published in Computer Aided Surgery, Jun. 17-19, 1999, p. 339, vol. 4—Iss. 6.
Davies, S.C., et al., “Ultrasound Quantitaion of Respiratory Organ Motion in the Upper Abdomen,” British Journal of Radiology, Nov. 1994, vol. 67 (803), pp. 1096-1102.
De Cunha, D. et al., The MIDSTEP System for Ultrasound guided Remote Telesurgery, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1998, pp. 1266-1269, vol. 3-No. 29, IEEE.
Debus, Thomas et al., “Multichannel Vibrotactile Display for Sensory Substitution During Teleoperation,” Proc. SPIE Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VIII, 2001, pp. 42-49, vol. 4570, SPIE.
Degoulange, E. et al., “HIPPOCRATE: an intrinsically safe robot for medical applications,” IEEE/RSH International Conference on Intelligent Biomedicine, 1998, pp. 959-964, vol. 2, IEEE.
Delgorge, Cecile et al., “A Tele-Operated Mobile Ultrasound Scanner Using a Light-Weight Robo,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 2005, pp. 50-58, vol. 9 No 1, IEEE.
Dewan, Maneesh et al., “Vision-Based Assistance for Ophthalmic Micro-Surgery,” Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2004, pp. 49-57, vol. 3217, Springer-Verlag.
Dodds, Zachary et al., “A hierarchical architecture for vision-based robotic manipulation tasks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Vision Systems, 1999, pp. 312-330, vol. 542, Springer-Verlag.
Doggett, Stephen W., “Image Registered Real Time Intra- Operative Treatment Planning: Permanent Seed Brachytherapy,” 2000, pp. 4.
Dolan, J.M. et al., “A Robot in an Operating Room: A Bull in a China Shop?,” IEEE Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1987, vol. 2, pp. 1096-1097.
Elder, Matthew C. et al., “Specifying user interfaces for safety critical medical systems,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Nov. 1995, pp. 148-155.
Eldridge, B. et al., “A Remote Center of Motion Robotic Arm for Computer Assisted Surgery,” Robotica, 1996, pp. 103-109, vol. 14 Issue 1.
Ellsmere, James et al., “A navigation system for augmenting laparoscopic ultrasound,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 184-191, Springer.
Fattal, Lischinsk, “Variational Classification for Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data,” Proceedings of the conference on Visualization, 2001, pp. 403-410, IEEE Computer Society.
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “3-D Ultrasound lmaging:A Review,” IEEE Engineering and Medicine and Biology Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 41-51, vol. 15—Issue 6, IEEE.
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the prostate,” SPIE International Symposium on Medical Imaging,San Diego, California,Published in SPIE: Medical Physics, Feb. 20-26, 1999, pp. 2-11, vol. 3859, SPIE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Local Therapy and Biopsy,” 10th International Conference of Advance Robotics, 2001, pp. 133-151, IEEE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Transrectal prostate biopsy inside closed MRI scanner with remote actuation under real-time image guidance,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 91-98, vol. 2488, Springer Verlag.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Surgical CAD/CAM and its application for robotically assisted percutaneous procedures,” 30th Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR), 2001, pp. 3-8, IEEE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “System For Robotically Assisted Prostate Biopsy And Therapy With intraOperative CT Guidance,” Journal of Academic Radiology, 2002, pp. 60-74, vol. 9 No 1, Elsevier.
Fisher, Scott S., “Virtual interface environment,” IEEE/A1AA 7th Digital Avionics Systems Conference Ft. Worth Texas, 1986, pp. 346-350, IEEE.
Frantz D.D et al., “Accuracy assessment protocols for electromagnetic tracking systems,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2003, pp. 2241-2251, Issue 48.
Fu, K.S. et al., “Robotics: control, sensing, vision, and intelligence,” 1987, pp. 12-76 and 201-265, Ch. 2 & 5, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fuchs, Henry et al., “Augmented Reality Visualization for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 1998, pp. 934-943, vol. 1496, Springer-Verlag.
Fukuda, Toshio et al., “A new method of master-slave type of teleoperation for a micro-manipulator system,” IEEE Microrobots and Teleoperations Workshop, 1987, 5 pages, IEEE.
Funda J., et al., “An experimental user interface for an interactive surgical robot,” In 1st International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery (MRCAS 94), 1994, pp. 196-203.
Funda J., et al., “Constrained Cartesian Motion Control for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, Jun. 1996, vol. 12 (3), pp. 453-465.
Funda, Janez et al., “Comparison of two manipulator designs for laparoscopic surgery,” SPIE International Symposium on Optical Tools for Manufacturing and Advanced Automation, 1994, pp. 172-183, vol. 2351, Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies.
Funda, Janez et al., “Control and evaluation of a 7-axis surgical robot for laparoscopy,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1995, pp. 1477-1484, vol. 2, IEEE.
Funda, Janez et al., “Image-Guided Command and Control of a Surgical Robot,” Proc. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality II, 1994, pp. 52-57.
Funda, Janez et al., “Optimal Motion Control for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” Intl. Symp. on Optical Tools for Manuf. & Adv Autom,Telemanipulator Technology and Space Telerobotics, 1993, pp. 211-222, vol. 2057, SPIE.
Furuta, Katsuhisa et al., “Master slave manipulator based on virtual internal model following control concept,” IEEE Intl. Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1987, pp. 567-572, vol. 1, IEEE.
Ganssle J.G.,,A Guide to Debouncing,The Ganssle Group,Jun. 2008,26 pages.
Garrett, William F. et al., “Real-Time Incremental Visualization of Dynamic Ultrasound Volumes Using Parallel BSP Trees,” IEEE Proceedings Visualization, 1996, pp. 235-240, 490, IEEE.
Gee, Andrew et al., “Processing and visualizing three-dimensional ultrasound data,” Journal of Radiology, 2004, pp. 186-193, vol. 77.
Gelb, A., et al., Table of Contents for“Applied Optimal Estimation,” The Analytic Science Corporation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,1974, 4 pages.
Gennari, G. et al., “Probabilistic data association methods in visual tracking of groups,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004, pp. 1-790-1-797, vol. 1—issue. 27, IEEE.
Gigot, Jean-Francois et al., “Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignant Liver Tumors Prclimary Results of a Multicenter European Study,” Ann Surg, 2002, pp. 90-97, vol. 236—issue 1.
Gonzales, Adriana Vilchis et al., “A System for Robotic Tele-echography,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 326-334, vol. 2208, Springer.
Green, Philip, S. et al., “Mobile telepresence surgery,” 2nd Annual Intl Symposium on Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Maryland Nov. 1995, pp. 97-103.
Grimson, W. Eric et al., “Automated Registration for Enhanced Reality Visualization in Surgery,” 1st International Symposium on Medical Robotic and Computer Assisted Surgery (MRCAS), Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 82-89.
Grimson, W.E.L., et al., “An automatic registration method for frameless stereotaxy, image guided surgery, and enhanced reality visualization.” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 15, No. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 129-140.
Hager G., et al., “The X Vision System: A Portable Substrate for Real Time Vision Applications,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 1998, vol. 69 (1),pp. 23-37.
Hager, Gregory D., “A Modular System for Robust Positioning Using Feedback from Stereo Vision,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Aug. 1997, vol. 13 (4), pp. 582-595.
Hager, Gregory D. et al., “Efficient Region Tracking With Parametric Models of Geometry and Illumination,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1998, pp. 1025-1039, vol. 20—issue. 10, IEEE.
Hager Gregory D. et al., “Multiple Kernel Tracking with SSD,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2004), 2004, pp. 1-790-1-797, vol. 1—issue 27, IEEE.
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Experimental and simulation studies of hard contact in force reflecting teleoperation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Proceedings, 1988, pp. 584-589, vol. 1, IEEE.
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Performance Evaluation of a Six-Axis Generalized Force-Reflecting Teleoperator,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1991, pp. 620-633, vol. 21-No. 3, IEEE.
Harris, S.J. et al., “A robotic procedure for transurethral resection of the prostate,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1995, pp. 264-271.
Harris, S.J. et al., “Experiences with Robotic Systems for Knee Surgery,” First Joint Conference of CVRMed and MRCAS. Mar. 19-22, 1997, Grenoble. France; Springer, 1997, pp. 757-766.
Herline A.J., et al., “image-Guided Surgery: Preliminary Feasibility Studies of Frameless Stereotactic Liver Surgery,” Archives of Surgery, 1999, vol. 134 (6), pp. 644-650.
Herline, Alan J. et al., “Surface Registration for Use in Interactive,” Image-Guided Liver Surgery, Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 11-17, vol. 5—No. 2.
Herman, Barry C., et al., “Telerobotic surgery creates opportunity for augmented reality surgery,” Abstract No. T1F2, Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, vol. 11, Issue 2, p. 203, Apr. 2005.
Herman, Barry C., “On the Role of Three Dimensional Visualization for Surgical Applications in Interactive Human Machine Systems,” Masters of Science Thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2005, 216 pages.
Herper Matthew, “Watch a $1.5 Million Surgical Robot Play a Board Game,” Forbes. Apr. 12, 2011. 2 pages, Online [Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/04/12/watch-a-1-5-million-surgical-robot-play-a-board-game/#587224f011f5] Accessed Jun. 7, 2016.
Hespanha J.P., et al., “What Tasks Can Be Performed with an Uncalibrated Stereo Vision System,” International Journal of Computer Vision, Nov. 1999, vol. 35 (1), 33 pages.
Hill J.W., et al., “Telepresence surgery demonstration system,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994, vol. 3, pp. 2302-2307.
Ho, S. C.et al., “Robot Assisted Knee Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 1995, pp. 292-300, vol. 14—Iss. 3, IEEE.
Hong, Jae-Sung et al., “A Motion Adaptable Needle Placement Instrument Based on Tumor Specific Ultrasonic Image Segmentation,” Fifth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, MICCAI '02, Tokyo, Japan, Jul. 2002, pp. 122-129.
Horn, Berthold K.P., “Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 629-642, Apr. 1987.
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “A teleoperated microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment for eye surgery,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1993, pp. 265-280, vol. 2-No. 4, MIT Press.
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “Ophthalmic microsurgicai robot and associated virtual environment,” Comput. Biol. Med. 1995, vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 173-182, Pergamon.
Hurteau et al., “Laparoscopic surgery assisted by a robotic cameraman: Concept and Experimental results,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 8-13, 1994, pp. 2286-2289, vol. 3, IEEE.
Hutchinson, Seth et al., “A Tutorial Visual Servo Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1996, pp. 651-670, vol. 12 issue.5, IEEE.
IEEE Systemsand Software Engineering—Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems, IEEE Std 1471-2000, 34 pages, First Edition, Jul. 15, 2007.
Inoue, Masao; “Six-Axis bilateral control of an articulated slave manipulator using a Cartesian master manipulator,” Advanced robotics, 1990, pp. 139-150, vol. 4-lssue 2, Robotic society of Japan.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064379, dated Mar. 29, 2013, 12 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064400, dated Mar. 27, 2013, 10 pages.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., “Intuitive Surgical daVinci API v5.0 Reference Manual,” generated Jul. 17, 2006, 149 pages.
Jackson, Bernie G. et al., “Force Feedback and Medical Simulation,” Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, Morgan et al. (Eds ), 1995, pp. 147-151, vol. 24, IOS Press and Ohms.
Jain, Ameet Kumar et al., “Understanding Bone Responses in B-mode Ultrasound Images and Automatic Bone Surface Extraction using a BayesianProbabilistic Framework,” SPIE Medical Imaging, 2004, pp. 131-142, vol. 5373.
Johns Hopkins University and Intuitive Surgical, Inc., “System Requirements for the Surgical Assistant Workstation,” Rev. 2, Jan. 29, 2007, 17 pages.
Jones D.B. et al., Chapter 25, “Next-Generation 3D Videosystems may Improve Laparoscopic Task Performance,” Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, 1995, pp. 152-160.
Joskowicz L., et al., “Computers in Imaging and Guided Surgery,” Computing in Science and Engineering, 2001, vol. 3 (5), pp. 65-72.
Jurie, Frederic et al., “Hyperplane Approximation for Template Matching,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence(PAMI), 2002, pp. 996-1000, vol. 24—Issue 7, IEEE.
Kane, Robert A., “Intraoperative Ultrasonography, History, Current State of the Art, and Future Directions,” J Ultrasound Med, 2004, pp. 1407-1420, vol. 23.
Kaplan, Irving, “Minimizing Rectal and Urinary Complications in Prostate Brachytherapy,” Journal of Endourology, 2000, pp. 381-383.
Kapoor A., et al., “Simple Biomanipulation Tasks with “Steady Hand” Cooperative Manipulator,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, vol. 2878, pp. 141-148.
Kapoor, Ankur and Russell H. Taylor, “A constrained optimization approach to virtual fixtures for multi-handed tasks,” 2008 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2008), May 19-23, 2008, Pasadena, California, pp. 3401-3406.
Kapoor, Ankur et al., “Constrained Control for Surgical Assistant Robots,” 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2006), Orlando, Florida, May 15-19, 2006, pp. 231-236.
Kapoor, Ankur et al., “Suturing in Confined Spaces: Constrained Motion Control of a Hybrid 8-DOF Robot,” Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 2005, pp. 452-459.
Kapoor, Ankur, Motion Constrained Control of Robots for Dexterous Surgical Tasks, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Computer Science, Baltimore, Maryland, Sep. 2007, 351 pages.
Kato H., et al., “The Effects of Spatial Cues in Augmented Reality Video Conferencing,” Hiroshima City University, Aug. 2001, 4 pages.
Kato H., et al. “Virtual Object Manipulation on a Table-Top AR Environment,” Hiroshima City University, 2000, 9 pages.
Kavoussi L.R., “Laparoscopic Donor Neptarectomy,” Kidney International, 2000, vol. 57, pp. 2175-2186.
Kazanzides, Peter et al., “A cooperatively-controlled image guided robot system for skull base surgery,” Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 16 (MMVR 16) Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, Long Beach, California, J.D. Westwood et al., eds., IOS Press, 2008, pp. 198-203.
Kazanzides, Peter et al., “Force Sensing and Control for a Surgical Robot,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1992, Nice, France; pp. 612-617, vol. 1, IEEE.
Kazerooni, H. , “Human Extenders.” ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control, 1993, pp. 281-290, vol. 115 No. 2(B).
Kazerooni, H., “Design and analysis of the statically balanced direct-drive robot manipulator,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 1989, pp. 287-293, vol. 6, Issue 4.
Kazerooni, H. et al., “The Dynamics and Control of a Haptic Interface Device,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 453-464, vol. 10—Issue 4, IEEE.
Kazerooni, H., “Human/Robot Interaction via the Transfer of Power and Information Signals Part I: Dynamics and Control Analysis,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 1632-1640, IEEE.
Kilmer, R. D. et al., “Watchdog safety computer design and implementation,” RI/SME Robots 8 Conference, Jun. 1984, pp. 101-117.
Kim, Won S. et al., “Active compliance and damping in telemanipulator control,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory New technology Report, 1991, pp. 1-14a. vol 15—Issue 4, JPL & NASA Case No. NPO-1796917466, Item 40.
Kitagawa, Masaya et al., “Effect of Sensory Substitution on Suture Manipulation Forces for Surgical Teleoperation,” 12th Annual Medicine Meets Virtual Reality Conference, 2005, 8 pages.
Koizumi, Naoshi et al., “Development of Three-Dimensional Endoscopic Ultrasound System with Optical Tracking,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI '02, Tokyo, 2002, pp. 60-65, vol. 2488, Springer-Verlag.
Koizumi, Norihiro et al., “Continuous Path Controller of Slave Manipulator in Remote Ultrasound Diagnostic System,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2002), 2002, pp. 3368-3373, vol. 4, IEEE.
Komada, Satoshi et al., “Bilateral robot hand based on estimated force feedback,” IEEE Proceedings IECON 87 Cambridge MA, Nov. 3-6, 1987, pp. 602-607, vol. 2, IEEE.
Kon, Ryan et al., “An open-source ultrasound calibration toolkit,” Medical Imaging Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2005, pp. 516-523, vol. 5750, SPIE.
Korein James U. et al., “A Configurable System for Automation Programming and Control,” IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation. San Francisco, 1986, pp. 1871-1877, vol. 3, IEEE.
Kosugi, Yukio et al., “An articulated neurosurgical navigation system using MRI and CT Images,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1988, pp. 147-152, vol. 35—Issue 2, IEEE.
Kragic D. et al., “Human-Machine Collaborative Systems for Microsurgicai Applications,” International Symposium on Robotics Research, 2005, pp. 731-741, vol. 24-lssue 9, Sage Publications.
Kruchten, Philippe B., “The 4+1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 12, Issue 6, pp. 42-50, Nov. 1995.
Krupa, A. et al., “Automatic 3-D Positioning of Surgical Instruments during Laparoscopic Surgery Using Automatic Visual Feedback,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Part , Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2002, pp. 9-16, vol. 2488, Springer Verlag.
Kumar R., “An Augmented Steady Hand System for Precise Micromanipulation,” PhD thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Apr. 2001, 118 pages.
Kumar, R., et al., “An Augmentation System for Fine Manipulation,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 957-965.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Application of Task-Level Augmentation for Cooperative Fine Manipulation Tasks in Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2001, pp. 1417-1418, vol. 2208, Springer Verlang.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Experiments with a Steady Hand Robot in Constrained Compliant Motion and Path Following”, 1999, pp. 92-97, IEEE.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Preliminary Experiments in Cooperative Human/Robot Force Control for Robot Assisted Microsurgicai Manipulation,” Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000. pp. 610-617, vol. 1, IEEE.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Preliminary experiments in robot/human microinjection,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp. 3186-3191, vol. 3, IEEE.
Kwoh, Yik, San et al., “A Robot With Improved Absolute Positioning Accuracy for CT Guided Stereotactic Brain Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Feb. 1988, pp. 153-160, vol. 35—Issue 2, IEEE.
Lacroute, P., “The VolPack Volume Rendering Library,” 1995, information downloaded from https://graphics.stanford.edu/software/volpack/, 4 pages.
Lacroute, Philippe G., “Fast Volume Rendering Using a Shear-Warp Factorization of the Viewing Transformation PhD Thesis,” Computer Science, Stanford, California, 1995, 236 Pages.
Lang, Samuel J., Xvision 2—A Framework for Dynamic Vision. Masters Thesis, Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001, pp. 1-49.
Lange, Thomas et al., Augmenting Intraoperative 3D Ultrasound with Preoperative Models for Navigation in Liver Surgery, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, 2004, pp. 534-541, vol. 3217, Springer Verlag.
Lau, William W. et al., “Stereo-Based Endoscopic Tracking of Cardiac Surface Deformation,” Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004, pp. 494-501, vol. 2, Springer Verlag.
Lavonius, Maija I. et al., “Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Study with Spiral Computed Tomography,Ultrasonography, Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopic Ultrasonography,” Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 2002, pp. 77-81, vol. 12-No. 2, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Lawson, Charles L. et al., “Linear least squares with linear inequality constraints Solving Least Squares Problems,” 1974, pp. 158-173, Prentice Hall Inc.
Lazarevic, Zoran, “Feasibility of a Stewart Platform with Fixed Actuators as a Platform for CABG Surgery Device,” 1997, 45 pages, Master's Thesis Columbia University Department of Bioengineering.
Lee Jr, F.T., et al., “CT-monitored Percutaneous Cryoablation in a Pig Liver Model: Pilot Study,” Radiology, 1999, vol. 211 (3), pp. 687-692.
Leven, Joshua, “A Telerobotic Surgical System With Integrated Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Thesis for Master of Science in Engineering in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, May 2005, 63 pages.
Leven, Joshua et al. “DaVinci Canvas: A Telerobotic Surgical System with Integrated, Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, J. Duncan et al. Eds., Palm Spring, Springer Verlag, 2005, vol. 3749, pp. 811-818.
Levoy, Marc, “Display of Surfaces from Volume Data,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 1988, pp. 29-37, vol. 8—Iss. 3, IEEE.
Li, M., “Intelligent Robotic Surgical Assistance for Sinus Surgery,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Aug. 2005, 246 pages.
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Spatial Motion Constraints in Medical Robots Using Virtual Fixtures Generated by Anatomy,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, Apr. 2004, pp. 1270-1275.
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Performance of surgical robots with automatically generated spatial virtual fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, Apr. 2005, pp. 217-222.
Li, Ming et al, “A Constrained Optimization Approach to Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Aug. 2-6, 2005, pp. 1408-1413.
Li, Ming et al., “Optimal Robot Control for 3D Virtual Fixture inConstrained ENT Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 165-172, vol. I, Springer Verlag.
Li, Ming et al., “Recognition of Operator Motions for Real-Time Assistance using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE, HAPTICS 2003, 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Mar. 22-23, 2003, pp. 125-131, IEEE.
Loser, Michael H. et al., “A New Robotic System for Visually Controlled Percutaneous Interventions under CT Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000, pp. 887-896, vol. 1935, Springer Verlag.
Loser, Michael H. et al., “Visual servoing for automatic and uncalibrated percutaneous procedures,” SPIE Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 270-281, vol. 3976, SPIE.
Lunwei Z., et al., “FBG Sensor Devices for Spatial Shape Detection of Intelligent Colonoscope,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 835-840.
Madhani A.J., “Design of Teleoperated Surgical Instruments for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Feb. 1998, 251 pages.
Maehara, S. et al., “Laparoscopy-Assisted Hepatectomy Using the Endoclose,” Surgical Endoscopy, 2002, vol. 16 (9), pp. 1363-1364.
Maier, Georg, E. et al., “A Dynamically Configurable General Purpose Automation Controller,” Proceedings of IFAC/IFIP Symp. on Software for Computer Control, 1986, pp. 47-52, Pergamon Press.
Mala, T. et al., “A Comparative Study of the Short-Term Outcome Following Open and Laparoscopic Liver Resection of Colorectal Metastases,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 1059-1063, vol. 16(7), Springer Verlag.
Marayong, Panadda et al., “Spatial Motion Constraints: Theory and Demonstrations for Robot Guidance Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp. 1954-1959, vol. 2, No. 14-19, IEEE.
Marescaux, Jadques and Francesco Rubino, “Virtual Operative Fields for Surgical Simulation,” Chapter 4 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 26-31.
Masamune K., et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Journal of Image Guided Surgery, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 242-248.
Masamune K., et al., “System for Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Procedures With Computed Tomography Guidance,” Journal of Computer—Assisted Surgery, 2001, vol. 6 (6), pp. 370-383.
Masamune, Ken et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Image Guid Surg, 1995, pp. 165-172.
Masamune Ken et al., “Development of CT-PAKY frame system—CT image guided needle puncturing manipulator and a single slice registration for urological surgery,” Proc. 8th annual meeting of Japanese Society for Computer Aided Surgery (JSCAS), 1999, pp. 89-90.
Masamune, Ken H. et al., “A Newly Developed Stereotactic Robot with Detachable Drive for Neurosurgery,” 1st International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Cambridge, Massachusetts; Springer, Oct. 11-13, 1998, pp. 215-222, vol. 1496.
Massie, Thomas H. et al., “The PHANTOM Haptic Interface: A Device for Probing Virtual Objects,” Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 1994, 7 pages.
Mayer, Hermann et al., “Skill Transfer and Learning by Demonstration in a Realistic Scenario of Laparoscopic Surgery,” Internationai Conference on Humanoids, 2003, 17 pages, IEEE.
Mayer, Hermann et al., “The Endo [PA]R System for Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2004, pp. 3637-3642, vol. 4, IEEE.
Megali, Giusepp et al., “A Computer-Assisted Robotic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy System for Video-Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2001, pp. 343-350, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag.
Menack, M. et al., “Staging of pancreatic and ampullary cancers for resectability using laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1129-1134, vol. 15-No. 10, Springer-Verlag.
Menon, Mani, “Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases,” Urol Clin N Am, 2004, pp. 701-717, vol. 31.
Merola, Stephen et al., “Comparison of Laparoscopic Colectomy With and Without the Aid of a Robotic Camera Holder,” Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2002, pp. 45-61, vol. 12-No. 1, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Michael B. Cohn's Home Page, http://www.bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/users/michaelc/, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, p. 1; UC Berkeley/Endorobotics Corporation Surgical Robotics Project Job Openings, http:/www.bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/users/michaelc/jobs.html, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, p. 1; and Medical Robotics, http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/˜mcenk/medical/, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, pp. 1-8.
Migga, Michael I. et al., “Intraoperative Registration of the Liver for Image-Guided Surgery System,” The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 350-359, vol. 5029.
Mitsuishi M., et al., “A tele-micro-surgery system with co-located view and operation points and a rotational-force-feedback-free master manipulator,” 2nd Annual Intl. Symposium on Medical robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery Baltimore Maryland, Nov. 4-7, 1995, pp. 111-118.
Mitsuishi, Mamoru et al., “Remote Ultrasound Diagnostic System,” Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 1567-1574, vol. 2, IEEE.
Mourgues, Fabien et al., “Flexible Calibrations of Actuated Stereoscopic Endoscope for Overlay in Robot Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 5th international Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Part 1, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2002, pp. 25-34, vol. 2488, Springer-Verlag.
Muratore, Diane M. et al., “Beam Calibration Without a Phantom for Creating a 3D Free-hand Ultrasound System,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 2001, pp. 1557-1566, vol. 27-No. 11, Elsevier.
Nakakura, Eric K et al., “Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Management Recommendations,” Advances on Oncology, 2000, pp. 12-18, vol. 16-No. 2.
Neisius B. et al., “Robotic manipulator for endoscopic handling of surgical effectors and cameras,” 1st Intl. Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1994, pp. 169-175, vol. 2.
Nelson, Thomas R. et al., “Interactive Acquisition, Analysis, and Visualization of Sonographic Volume Data,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 1997, pp. 26-37, vol. 8, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nelson, Thomas, R. et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 1998, pp. 1243-1270, vol. 24-No. 9, Elsevier.
Ng, W.S. et al., “Robotic Surgery, A First-Hand Experience in Transurethral Resection of the Prostate,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Mar. 1993, pp. 120-125, vol. 12—Issue 1, IEEE.
Novotny Paul M. et al., “Tool Localization in 3D Ultrasound Images,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2003, pp. 969-970, vol. 2879, Springer.
Office Action dated May 1, 2012 for Japanese Application No. 20090518470 filed Jun. 22, 2007, 7 pages.
Office Action dated Sep. 3, 2014 for Chinese Application No. 2010823529 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 8 pages.
Office Action dated Jan. 4, 2016 for European Application No. 10717330.4 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 8 pages.
Office Action dated Jul. 6, 2016 for Japanese Application No. 2015202607 filed Oct. 14, 2015, 7 pages.
Office Action dated May 9, 2016 for Korean Application No. 10-2011-7025321 filed Oct. 26, 2011, 18 pages.
Office Action dated Feb. 12, 2015 for Chinese Application No. 2010823529 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 6 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 8 pages.
Office Action dated Jul. 14, 2013 for Japanese Application No. 20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 3 pages.
Office Action dated Dec. 16, 2016 for Japanese Application No. 2015242062 filed Oct. 14, 2015, 13 pages.
Office Action dated Jan. 21, 2014 for Chinese Application No. 2010823529 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 44 pages.
Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2014 for Japanese Application No. 20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 13 pages.
Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 9 pages.
Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2013 for Japanese Application No. 20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 11 pages.
Ohbuchi R., et al., “Incremental Volume Reconstruction and Rendering for 3D Ultrasound Imaging,” The International Society of Optical Engineering, 1992, vol. 1808, pp. 312-323.
Park, Shinsuk et al., “Virtual Fixtures for Robotic Cardiac Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 1419-1420, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag.
Patriciu A., et al., “Motion-based Robotic Instrument Targeting under C-Arm Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 988-998.
Paul, Howard A. et al., “Development of a Surgical Robot for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics, Dec. 1992, pp. 57-66, vol. 285.
Payandeh S., et al., “On Application of Virtual Fixtures as an Aid for Telemanipulation and Training,” Proceedings 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS),Mar. 2002, pp. 18-23.
PCT/US07/71850 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Feb. 13, 2008, 9 pages.
PCT/US09/46234 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Sep. 9, 2009, 13 pages.
PCT/US09/56078 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jan. 20, 2010, 12 pages.
PCT/US10/28886 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jul. 6, 2010, 11 pages.
PCT/US10/28897 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jul. 19, 2010, 16 pages.
PCT/US10/38246 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Sep. 14, 2010, 17 pages.
PCT/US2011/036109 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Oct. 19, 2011, 16 pages.
PCT/US2011/036109 Invitation to Pay Additional Fees and Partial International Search Report, dated Aug. 18, 2011, 5 pages.
Podnos Y.D., et al., “Laparoscopic Ultrasound with Radiofrequency Ablation in Cirrhotic Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Technique and Technical Considerations,” American Surgeon, Dec. 2001, vol. 67 (12), pp. 1181-1184.
Pose—definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary, 4 pages, [online], [retrieved on Apr. 3, 2015], Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictonary/pose.
Posture—definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary, 4 pages, [online], [retrieved on Apr. 3, 2015], Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictonary/posture.
Poulose B.K., et al., “Human vs Robotic Organ Retraction During Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication,” Surgical Endoscopy, 1999, vol. 13, pp. 461-465.
Prager Richard et al., “Practical segmentation of 3D ultrasound,” In Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, 1999, pp. 161-164.
Prager Richard et al., “Rapid Calibration for 3D Freehand Ultrasound,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1998, pp. 855-869, vol. 24-No. 6, Elsevier.
Prasad, Srinivas K. et al., “A minimally invasive approach to pelvic osteolysis,” 2002, in Proc. Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), pp. 349-350.
Prasad Srinivas K. et al., “A Modular 2-DOF Force-Sensing Instrument for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 279-286, vol. I, Springer.
Pre-Appeai Examination Report, dated Sep. 3, 2014 for Japanese Application No. JP20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pages.
Pressing B., et al., “A Literature Review: Robots in Medicine,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Jun. 1991, vol. 10(2), pp. 13-22.
Ramey, N. A., “Stereo-Based Direct Surface Tracking with Deformable Parametric Models,” Thesis submitted to The Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, Apr. 2003, 104 pages.
Ramey, Nicholas A. et al., “Evaluation of Registration Techniques in a robotic approach to pelvic osteolysis,” International Proceedings of Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), 2004, pp. 26-27.
Rasmussen, Christopher et al., “Probabilistic data association methods for tracking complex visual objects,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 2001, pp. 560-576, vol. 23, Issue 6, IEEE.
Ratner, Lioyd E. et al., “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation,” Transplantation, 1997, pp. 3402-3403, vol. 29-lssue 8, Elsevier.
Ratner, Lioyd E et al., “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy,” Transplantation, 1995, pp. 1047-1049.
Rau, Beate, M. eta al., “is There Additional Information From Laparoscopic Ultrasound in Tumor Staging”, Digestive Surgery, 2002, pp. 479-483, vol. 19-No. 6.
Rockall, Timothy A., “The da Vinci Telerobotic Surgical System,” Chapter 8 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 57-60.
Rohling, Robert et al., “Three-dimensional spatial compounding of ultrasound images,” Medical Image Analysis, 1996, pp. 177-193, vol. 1—No. 3, Oxford University Press.
Rohling, Robert N. et al., “Radial basis function interpolation for 3-d ultrasound,” CUED/F-INFENG/TR 327, Cambridge University, Jul. 1998, 28 Pages.
Rosen J., et al., “The BlueDRAGON—A System for Measuring the Kinematics and the Dynamics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Tools In-Vivo,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2002, pp. 1876-1881.
Rosenberg, Louis B., “Human interface hardware for virtual laparoscopic surgery,” Proceedings of the Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, 1995, pp. 322-325, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Rosenberg, Louis B., “Virtual Fixtures: Perceptual Tools for Telerobotic Manipulation,” IEEE Virtual Reality International Symposium, 1993, pp. 76-82, IEEE.
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Robot-assisted stapedotomy: micropick fenestration of the stapes footplate,” Otolaryngology—Head and NeckSurgery, 2002, pp. 417-426, vol. 127.
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Task Performance in stapedotomy: Comparison between surgeons of different experience levels,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 2003, pp. 71-77, vol. 128-No. 1.
Roy, Jaydeep, “Advances in the design, analysis and control of force controlled robots,” Master's Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001, 210 Pages.
Sakas, Georgios et al., “Extracting surfaces from fuzzy 3D-Ultrasound data,” Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1995, pp. 465-474.
Salcudean, Septimiu E. et al., “A Robot System for Medical Ultrasound,” 9th International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR'99), 1999, pp. 195-202.
Santambrogio, R. et al., “Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures of the Liver During Laparoscopy: Technical Considerations,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 349-354, Springer-Verlag.
Sastry S., “MilliRobotics in Minimally Invasive Telesurgery,” Retrieved from Internet [URL: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu] 1995, 3 pages.
Sastry, Shankar et al., “Millirobotics for remote minamally invasive surgery,” Proceedings of the Intl. Workshop on Some Critical Issues in Robotics, Singapore, Oct. 2-3, 1995, pp. 81-98.
Sastry, Shankar, http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu, Nov. 1, 1995, Total 8 pages.
Schenker, Paul S. et al., “Development of a Telemanipulator for Dexterity Enhanced Microsurgery,” 2nd Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Nov. 4-7, Baltimore, Maryland, 1995, pp. 81-88.
Schorr, O., et al., “Distributed Modular Computer-Integrated Surgical Robotic Systems: Architecture for Intelligent Object Distribution,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 979-987.
Schreiner, Steve et al., “A system for percutaneous delivery of treatment with a fluoroscopically-guided robot,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1997, pp. 747-756, Springer-Verlag.
Schweikard, Achim et al., “Motion Planning in Stereotaxic Radiosurgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1993, pp. 909-916, vol. 1, IEEE.
Scott D.J., et al., “Accuracy and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation,” Surgical Endoscopy, Feb. 2001, vol. 15 (2),pp. 135-140.
Simaan, Nabil et al., “A Dexterous System for Laryngeal Surgery: Multi-Backbone Bending Snake-like Slaves for Teleoperated Dextrous Surgical Tool Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004, pp. 351-357, IEEE.
Simaan, Nabil et al., “High Dexterity Snake-Like Robotic Slaves for Minimally Invasive Telesurgery of the Upper Airway,” MICCAI 2004—the 7th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2004, pp. 17-24.
Solomon S.B., et al., “Robotically Driven Interventions: A Method of Using CT Fluoroscopy without Radiation Exposure to the Physician,” Radiology, 2002, vol. 225, pp. 277-282.
Solus-3D Ultrasound Project in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/Solus/, downloaded Jul. 5, 2007, 4 pages.
Sommer, Graham et al., “Liver tumors: utility of characterization at dual frequency US,” Radiology, 1999, pp. 629-636, vol. 211-No. 3.
Steele, Micah R. et al., “Shared control between human and machine: using a haptic steering wheel to aid in land vehicle guidance,” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2001, pp. 1671-1675.
Steen, Erik et al., “Volume Rendering of 3D Medical Ultrasound Data Using Direct Feature Mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1994, pp. 517-525, vol. 13—Iss. 3, IEEE.
Stefansic, James D. et al., “Registration of Physical Space to Laparoscopic Image Space for Use in Minimally Invasive Hepatic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 1012-1023, vol. 19-No. 10, IEEE.
Stetten, George D et al., “Overlaying Ultrasound Images on Direct Vision,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2001, pp. 235-240, vol. 20-No. 3.
Stewart, Charles V. et al., “The Dual-Bootstrap Iterative Closest Point Algorithm With Application to Retinal Image Registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. Nov. 2003, pp. 1379-1394, vol. 22—No. 11, IEEE.
Stoainovici D., et al., “Robotic Telemanipulation for Percutaneous Renal Access,” in 16th World Congress On Endourology. New York City, Sep. 3-6, 1998, Poster Session 17-5, p. S201.
Stoianovici, Dan, “A Modular Surgical Robotic System for Image Guided Percutaneous Procedures,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 404-410, vol. 1496, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
Stoianovici, Dan et al., “Robotic For Precise Percutaneous Needle Insertion,” In Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Urology and Engineering. San Diego, May 1998, pp. 4.
Stoll, Jeff, “Ultrasound-based servoing of manipulators for telesurgery,” Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VIII Conference, 2001, pp. 78-85, SPIE.
Sublett, John W. et al. “Design and implementation of a digital teleultrasound system for realtime remote diagnosis,” 8th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press, Jun. 9-10, 1995, pp. 292-298.
Suramo, I. et al., “Cranio-caudal movements of the liver, pancreas and kidneys in respiration,” Acta Radiologica: Diagnosis, 1984, pp. 129-131, vol. 25, Radiological Societies.
Susil, Robert, C. et al., “A Single Image Registration Method for CT Guided Interventions,” 2nd International Symposium on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions (MICCAI'99),Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999, pp. 798-808, vol. 1679, Springer-Verlag.
Szeliski, Richard, “Motion Estimation with Quadtree Splines,” IEEE 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, 1995, pp. 757-763, vol. 18—Issue. 12, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.
Taubes, Gary et al., “Surgery in Cyberspace,” Discover magazine, Dec. 1994, vol. 15, issue 12, pp. 85-92.
Tavakoli, M., et al., A Force Reflective Master-Slave System for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp. 3077-3082, vol. 4, IEEE.
Taylor R., et al., “A Telerobotic System for Augmentation of Endoscopic Surgery,” in IEEE Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1992, vol. 14, pp. 1054-1056.
Taylor R.H., et al., “A Computational Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision, 1986, vol. 726, pp. 438-440.
Taylor, R.H., et al., “A General Purpose Control Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Robotics, 1986, pp. 165-173, MIT Press.
Taylor R.H. et al., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Chapter 52 in Springer Handbook of Robotics, Springer, 2008, pp. 1199-1222.
Taylor R.H., et al., Table of Contents, “Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Technology and Clinical Applications, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, 8 pages.
Taylor, R.H., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Handbook of Industrial Robotics, Second Edition, 1999, pp. 1213-1227, Chapter 65, John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, Russell H., “A Perspective on Medical Robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, No. 9, Sep. 2006, pp. 1652-1664.
Taylor, Russell H. “An Image-directed Robotic System for Precise Orthopaedic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics mid Automation, 1994, pp. 261-275, vol. 10-No. 3, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H. and Christopher Hasser, “Development of a Surgical Assistant Workstation for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” NSF Proposal No. 0646678, Aug. 2006, 16 pages.
Taylor, Russell H. and Dan Stoianovici, “Medical Robotic Systems in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Problems in General Surgery, by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1-9, 2003.
Taylor, Russell H. and Peter Kazanzides, “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Interventional Medicine,” Chapter 18: Biomedical Information Technology, David Dagan Feng, Ed., Academic Press (Elsevier), 2008, pp. 393-416.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “A Steady-Hand Robotic System for Microsurgicai Augmentation,” International Journal of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 1201-1210, vol. 18-No. 12, Springer-Verlag.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, May/Jun. 1995, pp. 279-288, vol. 14, Issue 3, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “AML A Manufacturing Language,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 1982, pp. 19-41, vol. 1-No. 3, SAGE Publications.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “An Image-directed Robotic System for Hip Replacement Surgery,” J. Robotics Society of Japan, 1990, pp. 615-620, vol. 8—issue 5.
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “An Integrated Robot Systems Architecture,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 1983, pp. 842-856, vol. 71-lssue 7, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “An overview of computer-integrated surgery at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center,” IBM J Research and Development, 1996, pp. 163-183, vol. 40, Issue 2, IBM Corp.
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “Chapter 46: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” in Computer-Integrated Surgery, R. H. Taylor, et al., Editors, 1996, MIT Press, pp. 581-592.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Computer-Integrated Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Concept and Preliminary Results,” 1999, Medical image analysis, pp. 301-319, vol. 3-lssue 3, Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Medical Robotics in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics md Automation, 2003, pp. 765-781, vol. 19-No. 5, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “Redundant Consistency Checking in a Precise Surgical Robot,” in 12'th Annual Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1990, pp. 1933-1935, vol. 12-No. 5, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Research Report: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Accepted to IEEE EIMBS Magazine, Special Issue on “Robotics in Surgery,” Dec. 1994, 24 pages.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “The Architecture of an Integrated Robot System,” First Int. Conf. on Advanced Robotics (ICAR)., 1983, pp. 389-398.
Taylor, Russell H. “Medical Robots,” in Computer and Robotic Assisted Knee and Hip Surgery, 2004, pp. 54-59, Oxford Press.
Taylor, Russell H., “Robotics in Orthopedic Surgery,” In Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), L.P. Nolte and R. Ganz, Editors. 1999, Hogrefe and Huber, 1999, pp. 35-41.
Taylor, Russell H. “The Planning and Execution of Straight Line Manipulator Trajectories,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1979, pp. 424-436, vol. 23-lssue 4.
Taylor, Russell H., “Ultrasound Assistant for a Laparoscopic Surgical Robot,” NIH STTR Phase II Proposal R42-RR019159, revised May 2001, 54 pages.
Taylor, Russell H., Videotape: “Computer Assisted Surgery at IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,” 22 minutes 10 seconds, 1994 and 1995.
Teistler, Michael et al., “Virtual Tomography: A New Approach to Efficient Human-Computer Interaction for Medical Imaging,” Proc. of SPIE,, The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 512-519, vol. 5029.
Tewari, Ashutosh et al., “Technique of da Vinci Robot-Assisted Anatomic Radical Prostatectomy,” Urology, 2002, pp. 569-572,vol. 60-No. 4, Elsevier.
Thring, M.W., “Robots and Telechirs: Manipulators with Memory; Remote Manipulators; Machine Limbs for the Handicapped,” Ellis Horwood Limited, England, 1983, 79 pages, including Table of Contents, Preface, Chap. 5 (pp. 108-131), Chap. 7 (pp. 194-195, 235), Chap. 8 (pp. 236-278), Chap. 9 (p. 279).
Toon, John, “Virtual Reality for Eye Surgery,” Georgia Tech Research News, 1993, 4 Pages.
Toyama, Kentaro et al., “Incremental Focus of Attention for Robust Vision-based Tracking,” International Journal of Computer Vision, 1999, pp. 45-63, vol. 35-No. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Trevelyan, James P. et al., “Motion Control for a Sheep Shearing Robot,” IEEE Robotics Research Conference, the 1st International Symposium, Carroll, NH, USA., 1983, pp. 175-190, in Robotics Research, MIT Press.
Trivedi, Mohan M. et al., “Developing telerobotic systems using virtual reality concepts,” 1993 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and systems, 1993, pp. 352-359, vol. 1, IEEE.
Troccaz, Jocelyne et al., “The use of localizers, robots, and synergistic devices in CAS,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1997, pp. 727-736, vol. 1205, Springer-Verlag.
Umeyama, Shinji, “Least-Squares Estimation of Transformation Parameters between Two Point Patterns,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 376-380, Apr. 1991.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/583,963 Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2009, 40 pages.
Vertut, Jean and Phillipe Coiffet, Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development, English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages.
Vibet, C., “Properties of Master-Slave Robots,” Motor-con, MOTORCON'87, Hannover, Apr. 1987, pp. 309-316.
Vilchis, Adriana et al., “A New Robot Architecture for Tele-Echography,” IEEE Trans. Robotics & Automation, pp. 922-926, 2003, vol. 19-No. 5, IEEE.
Viswanathan, Anand et al., “Immediate Ultrasound Calibration with Three Poses and Minimal Image Processing,” MICCAI, 2004, pp. 446-454, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Webster R.J. et al., “Nonholonomic Modeling of Needle Steering,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2006, vol. 25 (5-6), pp. 509-525.
Webster Robert J. et al., “Design Considerations tor Robotic Needle Steering,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005, pp. 3588-3594, IEEE.
Wei, Guo-Quing et al., “Real-Time Visual Servoing for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1997, pp. 40-45, vol. 16—Issue 1, IEEE.
Wei, Zhouping et al. “Robot-assisted 3D-TRUS guided prostate brachytherapy: system integration and validation,” Medical Physics, 2004, pp. 539-548, vol. 31-No. 3.
Wengert, C., “Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab,” http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/, downloaded Oct. 24, 2006, 9 pages.
Wilhelm, Dirk et al., “Electromagnetically Navigated Laparoscopic Ultrasound,” Surg. Technol. Int. 2003, pp. 50-54, vol. 11.
Wood Thomas F. et al., “Radiofrequency ablation of 231 Unresectable hepatic tumors:indications, limitations, and complications,” Ann. Surg. Oncol, 2000, pp. 593-600, vol. 7, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Wu, Xiaohui et al., “A Framework for Calibration of Electromagnetic Surgical Navigation Systems,” IEEE RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS), 2003, pp. 547-552, vol. 1, IEEE.
Xu, Sheng et al., “3D Motion Tracking of Pulmonary Lesions Using CT Fluoroscopy Images for Robotically Assisted Lung Biopsy,” Proc. SPIE. 5367, Medical Imaging 2004: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display, 394. (May 5, 2004), pp. 394-402.
Yamagata H., et al., “Development of a New Display Method for Compound 3D Ultrasound Images: Fusion 3D Images From B-mode and 3D Doppler Images,” 1999, vol. 70, pp. 43-46.
Yao, Jianhua et al., “A C-arm fluoroscopy-guided progressive cut refinement strategy using a surgical robot,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 373-390, vol. 5-No. 6, Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Yao, Jianhua, et al., “A Progressive Cut Refinement Scheme for Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery Using C-arm Fluoroscopy,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medical Image and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI'99), Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 1010-1019, vol. 1679.
Yao, Jianhua et al., “Deformable registration between a statistical born density atlas and X-ray images,” Second International Conference on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery, 2002, pp. 168-169.
Zacherl, Johannes et al., “Current value of intraoperative sonography during surgery for hepatic neoplasms,” World J Surg, 2002, pp. 550-554, vol. 26-No. 5.
Zhang, Xiaoli and Shahram Payandeh, “Application of Visual Tracking for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 315-328, 2002.
Zhang, Z., “A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration,” Technical report MSR-TR-98-71, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Dec. 1998, pp. 1-21.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200368915 A1 Nov 2020 US
Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 12415354 Mar 2009 US
Child 15629533 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 16161204 Oct 2018 US
Child 16932373 US
Parent 15629533 Jun 2017 US
Child 16161204 US
Continuation in Parts (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 12163087 Jun 2008 US
Child 12415354 US
Parent 11478531 Jun 2006 US
Child 12163087 US