Skip to content

Archaic Legal Glossary & Citations

“Letters Patent”14th–20th Century
19th-C Meaning:

Open public letters from a monarch or government (literae patentes) granting monopoly rights.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Issued USPTO utility or design patent publication.
Historical note: Contrasted with 'letters close' (private sealed royal correspondence).
“In testimony whereof”19th Century
19th-C Meaning:

Formal concluding legal formula affirming under oath the execution of the instrument.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Inventor and witness digital/physical signatures.
Historical note: Required two witness attestations in 19th-century USPTO filing procedure.
“Aeroplane”Early 20th Century (Wright era)
19th-C Meaning:

A flat or cambered lifting aerofoil surface supported dynamically by air pressure.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Wing / Airfoil lifting surface (later evolved to mean the entire motorized aircraft).
Historical note: The Wrights used 'aeroplane' to denote the individual fabric-covered wings.
“Undulating Current”19th Century (Bell era)
19th-C Meaning:

An electric current whose magnitude varies continuously and periodically without interruption.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Continuous analog AC or audio-frequency electrical waveform.
Historical note: Bell's central legal weapon against telegraph companies who relied on pulsed DC make-and-break circuits.
“Subdivision of the Electric Light”1870s–1880s (Edison era)
19th-C Meaning:

The problem of operating numerous small domestic lamps off a single electrical generator.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Parallel circuit wiring of high-resistance incandescent electrical loads.
Historical note: Pundits claimed it was physically impossible until Edison increased filament resistance to 100 ohms.
“Optically Anisotropic Solution”1960s (Kwolek era)
19th-C Meaning:

A liquid solution that exhibits direction-dependent refractive indices due to molecular alignment.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Liquid crystalline nematic phase polymer dope.
Historical note: Technicians initially tried to throw out Kwolek's cloudy solution thinking it was contaminated.
“Unitary Body of Semiconductor Material”1950s–1960s (Noyce era)
19th-C Meaning:

A single continuous crystal structure of silicon or germanium.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Monolithic single-crystal silicon die / integrated circuit wafer.
Historical note: Differentiated Noyce's monolithic planar circuit from Jack Kilby's hybrid flying-wire prototype.
“Peculiar and Novel Construction”19th Century
19th-C Meaning:

A distinctive, patentable structural arrangement not found in prior art.

Modern Engineering Decoded:Novel and non-obvious mechanical embodiment under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Historical note: Standard 19th-century legal terminology establishing novelty.

Museum Broadside & Archival Print Edition

Authentic archival layout formatted for framing, study, and high-resolution printing

Paper:
Theme:
The United States Patent & Trademark Archive

Historical Specification & Engineering Broadside

Curated, Verified & Restored by Classic Patents (classic-patents.com)
SURGICAL ROBOTIC TOOLS, DATA ARCHITECTURE, AND USETool-Mounted Memory, Compatibility Signals, and Releasable Drive Interfaces
US 6,331,181Class: A61B 19/00; U.S. 606/130; 600/429
Inventor(s):Michael J. Tierney, Thomas G. Cooper, Chris A. Julian, Stephen J. Blumenkranz, Gary S. Guthart, Robert G. Younge
Origin / Location:California, United States
Grant & Filing:Filed October 15, 1999 · Granted December 18, 2001

I. Historical Context & Grant Summary

US 6,331,181 covers robotic surgical tools and system components that carry compatibility, tool-type, calibration, coupling, and tool-life information from a releasable tool interface to a processor. Its claims also cover driven tool interfaces, memory-stored offsets, engagement structures, and a magnetically actuated holder circuit, rather than a generic claim to every master-slave surgical robot.

II. Core Mechanism & Scientific Principles

The grant addresses a concrete systems problem in robotically assisted surgery: a processor must know which detachable tool is mounted, how its mechanics differ from nominal geometry, whether it is coupled, and whether its use history permits continued operation. The invention moves that information into memory and interface signals on the tool or related component.

Physical Operation:A releasable tool interface carries compatibility or tool-type data to the processor. For a driven tool, memory stores the offset between nominal and measured positions of the interface drive elements and distal end effector. The processor can use those values when it generates drive signals; the patent does not specify a universal sampling rate, motion ratio, or tremor cutoff.
Governing Formulation:
Rigid-body coordinate transformation:\mathbf{x}_{tool} = T_{base\rightarrow tool}(q)\,\mathbf{x}_{base}
Calibration offset compensation:\Delta q = q_{measured} - q_{nominal}

III. The Granted Legal Monopoly (Key Claims)

Claim 1 (Independent)Tool interface circuitry

This claim requires a detachable robotic surgical tool with a proximal interface, distal end effector, and circuitry that sends an identifier found in a processor table so compatibility can be checked before operation.

Claim 2 (Dependent)Factory tool calibration

This dependent claim adds tool calibration offsets to the compatibility signal, allowing the processor to account for measured tool-specific misalignment rather than assuming every tool was assembled at nominal geometry.

Claim 3 (Dependent)Grip strength rating

This dependent claim requires the signal to report the end effector's strength to the processor, so the controller can distinguish a tool's stated mechanical capability from another tool type.

IV. Mechanical Organ Breakdown

Tool-mounted compatibility memoryTerm: “” →

Circuitry on a releasable tool transmits a compatibility signal and may identify tool type or tool-specific data.

Measured drive calibrationTerm: “” →

Memory carries offsets between nominal interface-drive positions and measured end-effector positions.

Engagement and sterile adapterTerm: “” →

Sensors and a sterile-drape adapter preserve coupling information while transferring motion from holder drives to tool-driven elements.

CLASSIC PATENTS DIGITAL ARCHIVE • PERMANENT EXHIBIT ID: us-6331181-davinci
classic-patents.com/patents/us-6331181-davinci
Original USPTO PDF
Classic Patents/US 6,331,181
Internet & Modern Computing (1990–Present)Surgical Robotics & Tool Data Interfaces

Robotic Surgical Tool Compatibility and Calibration Interface

US 6,331,181

Tool-Mounted Memory, Compatibility Signals, and Releasable Drive Interfaces

Inventor(s)Michael J. Tierney, Thomas G. Cooper, Chris A. Julian, Stephen J. Blumenkranz, Gary S. Guthart, Robert G. Younge
Grant DateDecember 18, 2001
Filing DateOctober 15, 1999
LocationCalifornia, United States
US 6,331,181 covers robotic surgical tools and system components that carry compatibility, tool-type, calibration, coupling, and tool-life information from a releasable tool interface to a processor. Its claims also cover driven tool interfaces, memory-stored offsets, engagement structures, and a magnetically actuated holder circuit, rather than a generic claim to every master-slave surgical robot.
USPTO PDF
Audio Engineering Breakdown~1 min listen

Listen to the narrated mechanical breakdown and civilizational context

Engineering Analysis & Physical Principles

How It Works: Step-by-Step Mechanical & Physical Breakdown

The grant addresses a concrete systems problem in robotically assisted surgery: a processor must know which detachable tool is mounted, how its mechanics differ from nominal geometry, whether it is coupled, and whether its use history permits continued operation. The invention moves that information into memory and interface signals on the tool or related component.
The Core Breakthrough Mechanism

A releasable tool interface carries compatibility or tool-type data to the processor. For a driven tool, memory stores the offset between nominal and measured positions of the interface drive elements and distal end effector. The processor can use those values when it generates drive signals; the patent does not specify a universal sampling rate, motion ratio, or tremor cutoff.

Interactive Real-Time Physical Simulation

Drag to rotate · Pinch to zoom · Shared controls update the displayed model
INITIALIZING THREE.JS WEBGL SIMULATION...
Compatibility, Calibration, and Engagement Data.
Host-Model Telemetry/Computed Readout
Compatibility, Calibration, and Engagement Data
Compatibility identifier
Source
present[1]
Calibration record
Source
available[1]
Engagement
Source
confirmed[1]
Quantitative mechanics
Source Refusal
withheld[1]
Interval ghosts
Scale3.0 :1 · [1, 5]
Dated scenarios

Detailed Component Architecture

1Tool-mounted compatibility memory
Circuitry on a releasable tool transmits a compatibility signal and may identify tool type or tool-specific data.

The source permits a unique identifier, an identifier in a processor lookup table, or an arbitrary compatibility string. Nonvolatile memory may retain the data through tool exchange.

2Measured drive calibration
Memory carries offsets between nominal interface-drive positions and measured end-effector positions.

The processor can factor tool-specific offsets into coordinate transformations and servo drive signals, allowing tools of one type to be exchanged without assuming identical mechanical alignment.

3Engagement and sterile adapter
Sensors and a sterile-drape adapter preserve coupling information while transferring motion from holder drives to tool-driven elements.

The adapter places movable bodies between holder-side drive elements and the tool interface. The source also describes redundant engagement signals and an optional magnet that actuates holder circuitry.

Engineering Principles & Equations

Governing Equations & Engineering Principles

Authored explanation paired with its stated mathematical relation

Tool-Specific Nominal-to-Measured Calibration Offset

Robotic Tool Data InterfacesClaim 17
Mathematical Governing Law
Terms:
Plain English DecoderHover or tap any highlighted phrase
The tool memory reports the minus the so the processor can account for a tool-specific .
qmeasuredq_{measured}
Measured Relative Position
Observed relative position of driven elements and distal end effector
rad or m

The claim distinguishes this measured relationship from nominal assembly geometry.

Physical Principle & Engineering Insight

The equation is a compact engineering reading of claim 17's nominal-versus-measured calibration data. It does not assert a commercial motion scale or tremor-filter specification.

Historical Context: Made tool-specific calibration data a claim-level part of a detachable robotic surgical component interface.

Rigid-body coordinate transformationAuthored Principle 1
Stated relationxtool=Tbase→tool(q) xbase\mathbf{x}_{tool} = T_{base\rightarrow tool}(q)\,\mathbf{x}_{base}
The specification says the processor generates coordinate transformations and servo drive signals for different tool geometries. The grant does not set a single commercial transform, motion scale, or tremor filter, so the equation is an engineering abstraction of the claimed calibration-data path rather than a literal numeric limitation.
Calibration offset compensationAuthored Principle 2
Stated relationΔq=qmeasured−qnominal\Delta q = q_{measured} - q_{nominal}
Claim 17 expressly stores data indicating offsets between nominal and measured relative positions of driven elements and the end effector, then couples that memory to the interface for transmission to the processor.

Interactive Schematic Sheet (Fig. 1)

FIG. 1 illustrates a robotic surgical procedure in which a surgeon at a master station directs robotic surgical tools effected by a slave manipulator while an assistant prepares to change a tool.

1.00x
US 6,331,181 · FIG. 1
Tap any numbered pin2 Curated Callouts
Callout Pin Inspector

Select Any Numbered Pin

Click pins on the schematic or select from the list below to inspect historical specifications.

Why It Still Matters

Modern robotic instruments still need deterministic identification, calibration, coupling, and use-history data before a controller can safely configure a detachable tool. This patent is best read as an interface and data-architecture contribution within surgical robotics, not as proof of a particular clinical outcome or commercial system statistic.

Legal Claims Decoder (28 Numbered Claims)

Compare dense legalistic claims directly with decoded plain-English functional specifications.
Claim #1Independent Master Claim
1/28
Verbatim Historical Legal Text
“A robotic surgical tool for use in a robotic surgical system having a processor which directs movement of a tool holder, the tool comprising: a probe having a proximal end and a distal end; a surgical end effector disposed adjacent the distal end of the probe; an interface disposed adjacent the proximal end of the probe, the interface releasably coupleable with the tool holder; and circuitry mounted on the probe, the circuitry defining a signal for transmitting to the processor so as to indicate compatibility of the tool with the system; wherein the signal comprises an identifier signal included in a table accessible to the processor for comparison with the signal, the table comprising a plurality of compatible tool identification signals.”
Plain English Engineering Translation
This claim requires a detachable robotic surgical tool with a proximal interface, distal end effector, and circuitry that sends an identifier found in a processor table so compatibility can be checked before operation.
Key Protected Innovations:
Tool interface circuitryCalibration offset transmissionRobotic tool compatibility identification
Historical Legal Impact:
Independent claim 1 covers a tool-side compatibility identifier presented to a processor through a releasable interface and compared with a table of compatible identifiers.

The Historical Bottleneck

The specification identifies tool-change delay, limited manipulator count, shared trocar access, and the risk of operating a tool whose geometry or compatibility is unknown as practical bottlenecks in robotically assisted surgery.

Why Prior Art Failed

  • •Manual or robotic tools without a machine-readable compatibility signal
  • •Tool changes that require external identification or manual reconfiguration
  • •Nominal drive geometry that does not account for tool-specific measured offsets
  • •Engagement sensing vulnerable to temporary loss of one signal
The Breakthrough Insight
“Put compatibility, tool-type, calibration, life, and coupling information at the releasable tool boundary so the processor can configure and verify a tool during exchange.”

Patent Wars & Legal Litigations

Vs. Computer Motion, Inc. (ZEUS Surgical System)Infringement Challenge
Rival Claim & Defense:
Computer Motion held patents on the ZEUS robotic surgery system and HERMES voice-controlled laparoscopic cameras, asserting that Intuitive's da Vinci master-slave kinematic telemanipulator infringed its intellectual property.
Litigation Conflict:
Intuitive Surgical and Computer Motion filed eight separate patent infringement lawsuits against each other between 2000 and 2003 across Delaware and California federal courts (Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Computer Motion, Inc.).
Final Resolution & Judicial Outcome:
In March 2003, the rivals settled all litigation by merging, with Intuitive Surgical acquiring Computer Motion in a stock transaction valued at $150 million.
After the Grant
The patent is expired according to the Google Patents record. This page does not infer a specific litigation outcome or commercial product scope from the family record.
Civilizational Impact
The claim architecture helped make detachable surgical tools legible to a controller: a tool can report what it is, how its measured drive geometry differs from nominal geometry, and whether it is compatible before the system applies drive signals.
Further Context
  • The grant lists 28 claims and 22 drawing sheets, and its detailed embodiments include tool memory, engagement sensors, sterile adapters, and compatibility verification.