IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,690,867
Granted Patent B2
US 12,690,867 · App. 18/662,686 · Granted Jul 28, 2026

System and method for variable velocity instrument

Inventors: David W. Weir (San Carlos, CA); Gabriel F. Brisson (Livermore, CA); William A. Burbank (Sandy Hook, CT); Amir Chaghajerdi (Los Altos, CA); Patrick Flanagan (San Diego, CA); Pushkar Hingwe (Los Altos, CA); Andrew Wilson (Glastonbury, CT); Donald F. Wilson, Jr. (Santa Clara, CA); Matthew A. Wixey (Trumbull, CT)
Assignee: INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.
A61B17/07207A61B17/00234A61B34/00A61B34/10A61B34/30A61B34/35A61B34/74A61B90/06A61B2017/00017A61B2017/00022A61B2017/00039A61B2017/00075A61B2017/00128A61B2017/00367A61B2017/00398A61B2017/0725A61B2017/07257A61B2017/07271A61B2017/07278A61B2034/2059A61B34/25A61B2034/305A61B2090/064A61B2090/066G05B15/02
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,690,867
App. No.
18/662,686
Filed
May 13, 2024
Granted
Jul 28, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2115
USPC
700/302
Abstract

Techniques for control of an instrument include a device having an actuator. To perform an operation with an instrument coupled to the actuator, the instrument is operated according to a state machine by: transitioning the instrument from a gripped state to a clamped state in response to receiving a clamp command; transitioning the instrument from the clamped state to a firing state in response to receiving a fire command; transitioning the instrument from the firing state to a pause state in response to detecting a stall in the actuator used to actuate the instrument; transitioning the instrument from the pause state to a stop firing state in response to a pause limit being reached; and transitioning the instrument from the pause state to the firing state in response to the actuator beginning to move again or after a first predetermined period of time has elapsed since entering the pause state.

Claims (55)

1 . A computer-assisted device comprising:

an actuator; and

one or more processors;

wherein to perform an operation with an instrument coupled to the actuator, the one or more processors are configured to operate the instrument according to a state machine by:

transitioning the instrument from a gripped state to a clamped state in response to receiving a clamp command;

transitioning the instrument from the clamped state to a firing state in response to receiving a fire command;

transitioning the instrument from the firing state to a pause state in response to detecting a stall in the actuator used to actuate the instrument;

transitioning the instrument from the pause state to a stop firing state in response to a pause limit being reached, the pause limit comprising a count of a number of pauses during operation of the instrument being above a predetermined number of pauses, a total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above a maximum pause duration, or the count of the number of pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the predetermined number of pauses and the total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the maximum pause duration; and

transitioning the instrument from the pause state to the firing state in response to the actuator beginning to move again or after a first predetermined period of time has elapsed since entering the pause state.

2 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein to detect the stall in the actuator, the one or more processors are configured to detect a lack of motion of the actuator over a second predetermined period of time, an amount of force being applied by the actuator exceeding a force threshold, or an amount of torque being applied by the actuator exceeding a torque threshold.

3 . The computer-assisted device of claim 2 , wherein transitioning the instrument from the gripped state to the clamped state comprises determining that a clamp position is reached while the amount of force applied by the actuator remains below the force threshold or the amount of torque applied by the actuator remains below the torque threshold.

4 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein transitioning the instrument from the firing state to the pause state comprises setting a velocity set point of the actuator to a zero velocity.

5 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein, in response to a reciprocating element of the instrument traveling a predetermined distance, the one or more processors are further configured to reset the count of the number of pauses or reset the total duration of all pauses.

6 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

providing, while in the stop firing state, an alert to an operator.

7 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the stop firing state to a forced firing state in response to receiving a forced firing command; and

increasing, while in the forced firing state, a force or torque limit of the instrument to a maximum force or torque limit for the instrument.

8 . The computer-assisted device of claim 7 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the forced firing state to a possible bad staples state in response to a reciprocating member of the instrument reaching a goal position without an amount of force or torque applied by the actuator exceeding the maximum force or torque limit; and

providing, while in the possible bad staples state, an alert to an operator that inadequate staple formation may have occurred.

9 . The computer-assisted device of claim 7 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the forced firing state to a second pause state in response to detecting another stall in the actuator while in the forced firing state.

10 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the clamped state to an unclamping state in response to receiving an unclamp command.

11 . The computer-assisted device of claim 10 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the unclamping state to the clamped state in response to the unclamp command being replaced with the clamp command.

12 . The computer-assisted device of claim 1 , wherein operating the instrument according to the state machine further comprises:

transitioning the instrument from the pause state to the stop firing state in response to a second pause limit being reached, the second pause limit comprising a count of a number of pauses during operation of the instrument where the actuator attempts to move a reciprocating element of the instrument over a predetermined portion of a total distance the reciprocating element can travel being above a second predetermined number of pauses, a total duration of pauses during the operation of the instrument as the actuator attempts to move the reciprocating over the predetermined portion of the total distance being above a second maximum pause duration, or the count of the number of pauses during the operation of the instrument as the actuator attempts to move the reciprocating over the predetermined portion of the total distance being above the second predetermined number of pauses and the total duration of pauses during the operation of the instrument as the actuator attempts to move the reciprocating over the predetermined portion of the total distance being above the second maximum pause duration.

13 . A method of operating an instrument for use with a computer-assisted device comprising one or more processors, the method comprising:

transitioning, by the one or more processors, an instrument coupled to the computer-assisted device from a gripped state to a clamped state in response to receiving a clamp command;

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the clamped state to a firing state in response to receiving a fire command;

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the firing state to a pause state in response to detecting a stall in an actuator used to actuate the instrument;

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the pause state to a stop firing state in response to a pause limit being reached, the pause limit comprising a count of a number of pauses during operation of the instrument being above a predetermined number of pauses, a total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above a maximum pause duration, or the count of the number of pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the predetermined number of pauses and the total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the maximum pause duration; and

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the pause state to the firing state in response to the instrument beginning to move again or after a first predetermined period of time has elapsed since entering the pause state.

14 . The method of claim 13 , wherein detecting the stall in the instrument comprises detecting a lack of motion of the actuator over a second predetermined period of time, an amount of force being applied by the actuator exceeding a force threshold, or an amount of torque being applied by the actuator exceeding a torque threshold.

15 . The method of claim 13 , further comprising:

in response to a reciprocating element of the instrument traveling a predetermined distance, resetting, by the one or more processors, the count of the number of pauses or reset the total duration of all pauses.

16 . The method of claim 13 , further comprising:

providing, by the one or more processors while in the stop firing state, an alert to an operator;

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the stop firing state to a forced firing state in response to receiving a forced firing command; and

increasing, while in the forced firing state, a force or torque limit of the instrument to a maximum force or torque limit for the instrument.

17 . The method of claim 16 , further comprising:

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the forced firing state to a possible bad staples state in response to a reciprocating member of the instrument reaching a goal position without an amount of force or torque applied by the actuator exceeding the maximum force or torque limit; and

providing, by the one or more processors while in the possible bad staples state, an alert to the operator that inadequate staple formation may have occurred.

18 . The method of claim 13 , further comprising:

transitioning, by the one or more processors, the instrument from the stop firing state to a forced firing state in response to receiving a forced firing command; and

increasing, by the one or more processors while in the forced firing state, a force or torque limit of the instrument to a maximum force or torque limit for the instrument.

19 . A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more processors associated with a computer-assisted device are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:

transitioning an instrument coupled to the computer-assisted device from a gripped state to a clamped state in response to receiving a clamp command;

transitioning the instrument from the clamped state to a firing state in response to receiving a fire command;

transitioning the instrument from the firing state to a pause state in response to detecting a stall in an actuator used to actuate the instrument;

transitioning the instrument from the pause state to a stop firing state in response to a pause limit being reached, the pause limit comprising a count of a number of pauses during operation of the instrument being above a predetermined number of pauses, a total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above a maximum pause duration, or the count of the number of pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the predetermined number of pauses and the total duration of all pauses during the operation of the instrument being above the maximum pause duration; and

transitioning the instrument from the pause state to the firing state in response to the instrument beginning to move again or after a first predetermined period of time has elapsed since entering the pause state.

20 . The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19 , wherein detecting the stall in the instrument comprises detecting a lack of motion of the actuator over a second predetermined period of time, an amount of force being applied by the actuator exceeding a force threshold, or an amount of torque being applied by the actuator exceeding a torque threshold.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 15, 2024
From: WEIR, DAVID W.; BURBANK, WILLIAM A.; FLANAGAN, PATRICK; WILSON, ANDREW; WIXEY, MATTHEW A.; BRISSON, GABRIEL F.; CHAGHAJERDI, AMIR; HINGWE, PUSHKAR; WILSON, DONALD F., JR.
To: INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.
Reel/Frame 068296/0227 →
Continuity (5)
Continuation 17160288 · Jan 27, 2021
Continuation 16072356 · Jan 27, 2017
Provisional Application 62408283 · Oct 14, 2016
Provisional Application 62288784 · Jan 29, 2016
Related Publication 20240293121A1 · Sep 5, 2024
References Cited (58)
US 5645209A · Green · 1997 [cited by examiner]
US 5657921A · Young et al. · 1997 [cited by applicant]
US 5865361A · Milliman et al. · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6651034B1 · Hedlund et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6793652B1 · Whitman et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 9119660B2 · Rivers et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 10828030B2 · Weir et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10973519B2 · Weir et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11291442B2 · Wixey et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 12419638B1 · Moubarak · 2025 [cited by examiner]
US 20090069830A1 · Mulvihill et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090090763A1 · Zemlok et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20110139851A1 · Mccuen · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120211542A1 · Racenet · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120248167A1 · Flanagan et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130131650A1 · Whitman et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130267950A1 · Rosa et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140012289A1 · Snow et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140039681A1 · Bowling et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140110455A1 · Ingmanson et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150100066A1 · Kostrzewski et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150209573A1 · Hibner et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150223812A1 · Whitman et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150272583A1 · Leimbach et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160066912A1 · Baber et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170296183A1 · Shelton, IV et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180049813A1 · Yates et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20210145441A1 · Weir et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220183687A1 · Wixey et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 101528151A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
CN 102781353A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
EP 2724674A2 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
EP 2923653A2 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
EP 2923657A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
EP 2923661A2 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
EP 3064152A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
EP 3064153A2 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
EP 3231373A2 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
EP 3231375A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
EP 3064152B1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
JP 2009090113A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
JP 2014171879A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2009123891A1 · 2009 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2012064528A1 · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2012068156A2 · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2012112249A1 · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2013059643A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2014028702A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2014127271A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2014146107A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2015142943A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP24153514.5, mailed on Jun. 5, 2024, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report for Application No. 17745032.7 mailed on Aug. 12, 2019, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report for Application No. 17745046.7 mailed on Aug. 12, 2019, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP23174145.5, mailed on Sep. 5, 2023, 09 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2017/015473, mailed on May 11, 2017, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2017/015496, mailed on May 1, 2017, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Vertut, J., and Coiffet, P., “Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development,” English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages. [cited by applicant]