DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1—20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/18/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson (Nelson).
As per claim 1, Nelson teaches:
A method for stabilizing a patient litter basket (10—Fig.1; para [0033]), the method comprising: detecting an angular acceleration of the patient litter basket (50—Fig.6A; para [0033]); determining that the angular acceleration of the patient litter basket is greater than a predetermined threshold angular acceleration (para [0033]); and activating a first gyroscope (examiner note; para [0030]; claim 2: sensor comprises at least one gyroscope) to counter act a torque of the patient litter basket by generating a gyroscopic counter torque (para [0033]).
As per claim 2, Nelson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising simultaneously activating the first gyroscope and a second gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket (para [0033]; claim 9: sensors comprises a plurality of gyroscopes), wherein the gyroscopic counter torque comprises a sum of a first torque generated by the first gyroscope and a second torque generated by the second gyroscope (para [0034]).
Note: The examiner notes that claim 17 of Nelson (as modified) teaches wherein the sensors are one or more gyroscopes. It may be appreciated that claim 2 teaches wherein sensor element 50 comprises at least one gyroscope element. The examiner interprets the first gyroscope as the gyroscope element comprised within sensor element of claim 2.
As per claim 3, Nelson teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising a plurality of sidewalls extending perpendicular from a base of the patient litter basket to form a patient space for containing a patient (16—Fig.1; para [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 15—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson in view of U.S Patent Application 2010/0242169 A1 to McNulty (McNulty hereafter).
As per claim 4, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 3.
Nelson does not teach: , wherein the first gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a first sidewall of the patient litter basket.
McNulty teaches: wherein the first gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a first sidewall of the patient litter basket (810-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provided gyroscopes integral with the patient support housing as taught in McNulty (para [0105]).
As per claim 5, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 4.
Nelson does not teach: wherein the second gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a second sidewall of the patient litter basket.
McNulty teaches: wherein the second gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a second sidewall of the patient litter basket (812-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provided gyroscopes integral with the patient support housing as taught in McNulty (para [0105]).
As per claim 15, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 14.
Nelson does not teach, wherein each first gyroscope of the pair of first gyroscopes is disposed at least partially within at least one of a first sidewall or a second sidewall of the patient litter basket, the first sidewall and the second sidewall defining opposing sides of the patient litter basket.
McNulty teaches, wherein each first gyroscope of the pair of first gyroscopes is disposed at least partially within at least one of a first sidewall or a second sidewall of the patient litter basket, the first sidewall and the second sidewall defining opposing sides of the patient litter basket (810-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provided gyroscopes integral with the patient support housing as taught in McNulty (para [0105]).
As per claim 16, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 15.
Nelson does not teach, wherein each second gyroscope of the pair of second gyroscopes is disposed at least partially within at least one of a third sidewall or a fourth sidewall of the patient litter basket, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall defining opposing end of the patient litter basket.
McNulty teaches, wherein each second gyroscope of the pair of second gyroscopes is disposed at least partially within at least one of a third sidewall or a fourth sidewall of the patient litter basket, the third sidewall and the fourth sidewall defining opposing end of the patient litter basket (812-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provided gyroscopes integral with the patient support housing as taught in McNulty (para [0105]).
As per claim 17, Nelson (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall, and the fourth sidewall each extend perpendicular from a base of the patient litter basket to form a patient space (16—Fig.1; para [0027]).
As per claim 18, Nelson teaches:
A method of manufacturing a patient litter basket (10—Fig.1; para [0033]), the method comprising: disposing a plurality of sidewalls perpendicular to a base of the patient litter basket to form a patient space (16—Fig.1; para [0027]).
Nelson does not teach; disposing a first gyroscope at least partially within a first sidewall of the patient litter basket; and disposing a second gyroscope at least partially within a second sidewall of the patient litter basket.
McNulty teaches, disposing a first gyroscope at least partially within a first sidewall of the patient litter basket(810-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support); and disposing a second gyroscope at least partially within a second sidewall of the patient litter basket (812-Fig.8; para [0104]: gyroscope disposed in side of support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provided gyroscopes integral with the patient support housing as taught in McNulty (para [0105]).
Claim(s) 6—14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0336807 A1 to Ala et al. (Ala hereafter).
As per claim 6, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 2.
Nelson does not teach: wherein the first gyroscope is activated by a controller associated with an onboard computer of an aircraft.
Ala teaches: wherein the first gyroscope is activated by a controller associated with an onboard computer of an aircraft (120-Fig.9; para [0054-55]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform activated by the controller associated with the onboard computer of the aircraft) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform including a controller associated with an onboard computer of an aircraft . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce signals to be sent to the gyro pairs to produce changes to the operating state of one or more of the gyros of one or more of the gyro pair as taught in Ala (para [0054]).
As per claim 7, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 6.
Nelson does not teach, wherein the second gyroscope is activated by the controller associated with the onboard computer of the aircraft.
Ala teaches, wherein the second gyroscope is activated by the controller associated with the onboard computer of the aircraft (120-Fig.9; para [0054-55]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform activated by the controller associated with the onboard computer of the aircraft) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform including a controller associated with an onboard computer of an aircraft . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce signals to be sent to the gyro pairs to produce changes to the operating state of one or more of the gyros of one or more of the gyro pair as taught in Ala (para [0054]).
As per claim 8, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 2.
Nelson does not teach, further comprising activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket, wherein the third gyroscope is disposed perpendicular to the first gyroscope.
Ala teaches, further comprising activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket (34-Fig.2; para [0042]), wherein the third gyroscope is disposed perpendicular to the first gyroscope (34 & 38-Fig.2; para [0042] third gyroscope perpendicular to first gyroscope 38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 9, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 8.
Nelson does not teach, further comprising simultaneously activating the third gyroscope and a fourth gyroscope disposed parallel to the third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket, wherein the gyroscopic counter torque comprises a sum of a third torque generated by the third gyroscope and a fourth torque generated by the fourth gyroscope.
Ala teaches, further comprising simultaneously activating the third gyroscope and a fourth gyroscope (36-Fig.2; para [0042]) disposed parallel to the third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket (36 & 38-Fig.2; para [0042]), wherein the gyroscopic counter torque comprises a sum of a third torque generated by the third gyroscope and a fourth torque generated by the fourth gyroscope (para [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 10, Nelson teaches:
A method for orienting a patient litter basket(10—Fig.1; para [0033]), the method comprising: receiving, data from a motion sensor embedded within the patient litter basket corresponding to an orientation of the patient litter basket (50—Fig.6A; para [0033]); determining, a first torque required to maintain an orientation of the patient litter basket with respect to an aircraft (para [0033]); and commanding, a pair of first gyroscopes to rotate at a first speed, the first speed corresponding to the first torque (examiner note; para [0030]; claim 2: sensor comprises at least one gyroscope).
Nelson does not teach, the method comprising: receiving, by a controller determining, by the controller, a first torque required to maintain an orientation and commanding, by the controller, a pair of first gyroscopes to rotate at a first speed.
Ala teaches, the method comprising: receiving, by a controller determining, by the controller, a first torque required to maintain an orientation and commanding, by the controller (para [0054]), a pair of first gyroscopes to rotate at a first speed (para [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 11, Nelson (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, updated data from the motion sensor(para [0033]); and determining, a second torque required to maintain the orientation of the patient litter basket with respect to the aircraft (para [0034] thrust continuously modulated according to external forces and extent of spin the patient litter basket).
Nelson does not teach: receiving, by the controller, updated data from the motion sensor; and determining, by the controller, a second torque.
Ala teaches receiving, by the controller, updated data from the motion sensor (para [0056]); and determining, by the controller, a second torque (para [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 12, Nelson (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising increasing, by the controller, the rotation of the pair of first gyroscopes from the first speed to a second speed corresponding to the second torque (para [0034] greater thrust can be modulated according to external forces and extent of spin the patient litter basket).
Nelson does not teach further comprising increasing, by the controller, the rotation of the pair of first gyroscopes.
Ala teaches further comprising increasing, by the controller, the rotation of the pair of first gyroscopes (120-Fig.8; para [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 13, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 11.
Nelson does not teach, further comprising decreasing, by the controller, the rotation of the pair of first gyroscopes from the first speed to a third speed corresponding to the second torque.
Ala teaches, further comprising decreasing, by the controller, the rotation of the pair of first gyroscopes from the first speed to a third speed (para [0053]: varying spin rates) corresponding to the second torque (Fig.7; para [0053]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 14, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 11.
Nelson does not teach, further comprising commanding, by the controller, a pair of second gyroscopes to rotate at a third speed, the third speed corresponding to the second torque.
Ala teaches, further comprising commanding, by the controller, a pair of second gyroscopes to rotate at a third speed (Fig.7; para [0053]: varying spin rates including a third speed), the third speed corresponding to the second torque (para [0053]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to produce counter-rotation by rotating the gyroscopes of an individual gyro pair about the same axis, using the motor or other mechanism as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
Claim(s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson in view of U.S Patent Application 2010/0242169 A1 to McNulty in further view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0336807 A1 to Ala.
As per claim 19, Nelson (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 18.
Nelson does not teach, wherein the first gyroscope and the second gyroscope each comprise a frame and at least one flywheel rotatable in three directions with respect to the frame.
Ala teaches, wherein the first gyroscope and the second gyroscope each comprise a frame and at least one flywheel rotatable in three directions with respect to the frame (230 & 230-Fig.11; para [0062]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure out-of-plane moments cancel out as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
As per claim 20, Nelson (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 19, further including: coupling a motion sensor configured to sense an angular acceleration of the patient litter basket to the patient litter basket (50—Fig.6A; para [0033]).
Nelson does not teach; and operable coupling a controller to the patient litter basket, the controller configured to operate the first gyroscope and the second gyroscope based on data received from the motion sensor.
Ala teaches; and operable coupling a controller to the patient litter basket, the controller configured to operate the first gyroscope and the second gyroscope based on data received from the motion sensor (para [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Nelson (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform) and Ala (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes to provide a counter torque to a litter platform and activating a third gyroscope to counter act the torque of the patient litter basket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure out-of-plane moments cancel out as taught in Ala (para [0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 04/22/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights