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 a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 06/22/2022.
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) 1—3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson (Nelson hereafter) in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0084320 A1 to Hyde et. al (Hyde hereafter).
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 counteract a torque of the patient litter basket by generating a gyroscopic counter torque (para [0033]).
Nelson does not teach, the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes.
Hyde teaches, the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes (202-Fig.2; para [0065]).
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 Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) and arrived at a patient litter provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to apply a righting torque along one or more of a transverse axis, a longitudinal axis, and a vertical axis as taught in Hyde (para [0065]).
As per claim 2, Nelson (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising simultaneously activating the first gyroscope and a second gyroscope to counteract 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 (as modified) 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(s) 6—9 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 2015/0084320 A1 to Hyde 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 Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) 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 Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) and Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) 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 counteract 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 counteract 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 Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) 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 counteract 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 counteract 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 Hyde (directed to a patient support provided with gyroscopes comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes) 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) 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 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) 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]: counter-rotation may be brought about by use of a single motor, for example with suitable gearing, or by other suitable mechanisms).
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 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 operably 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 operably 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 McNulty (directed to a patient litter provided with gyroscopes positioned in a sidewall of the support) 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10—17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 10, the closest prior art of record WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson teaches a patient litter basket with spin control. The litter basket of Nelson is provided with a thruster unit which include a plurality of gyroscopes. The combination structure present in claim 10 was not found in WIPO document 2021/016192 A2. Specifically, the limitation with respect to:
each of the pair of first gyroscopes comprising a flywheel configured to rotate about an axis of precession to generate a gyroscopic counter torque, to rotate at a first speed, the first speed corresponding to the first torque, wherein the pair of first gyroscopes is mounted to sidewalls of the patient litter basket and configured such that, during operation, a net reaction torque of the pair of first gyroscopes about roll axes and about pitch axes of the patient litter basket is substantially zero while producing a non-zero gyroscopic counter torque about a yaw axis of the patient litter basket
in combination with
the method of orienting a patient litter basket comprising receiving by a controller data from a motion sensor within the liter basket corresponding to an orientation of the litter basket and determining the require torque required to maintain the orientation of the litter basket.
The teachings of U.S. Patent Application 2010/0242169 A1 to McNulty teaches a body transfer system with yaw control. However, teachings were silent with respect to the method of orienting a patient litter basket comprising receiving by a controller data from a motion sensor within the liter basket corresponding to an orientation of the litter basket and determining the require torque required to maintain the orientation of the litter basket.
The teaching of U.S. Patent Application 2017/0336807 to Ala teaches a gyroscopic attitude control system. While Ala may suggest an attitude control system includes one or more control moment gyro pairs, with gyros of individual of the pairs being counter-rotated to rotate the rotation axes of flywheels of the gyros of a gyro pair in opposite direction, the teachings are silent with respect to
each of the pair of first gyroscopes comprising a flywheel configured to rotate about an axis of precession to generate a gyroscopic counter torque, to rotate at a first speed, the first speed corresponding to the first torque, wherein the pair of first gyroscopes is mounted to sidewalls of the patient litter basket and configured such that, during operation, a net reaction torque of the pair of first gyroscopes about roll axes and about pitch axes of the patient litter basket is substantially zero while producing a non-zero gyroscopic counter torque about a yaw axis of the patient litter basket
in combination with
the method of orienting a patient litter basket comprising receiving by a controller data from a motion sensor within the liter basket corresponding to an orientation of the litter basket and determining the require torque required to maintain the orientation of the litter basket.
U.S Patent Application 2015/0084320 to Hyde et. al (Hyde hereafter) discloses a stand up wheel chairs having automatic stability control. Hyde teaches a gyroscopic stabilization assembly with at least one gyroscope operable to apply a righting torque along at least one axis resulting in a net reduction in a change in the angular motion of the stand up wheel chair. However the reference with respect to the combination of a controller configured to orient a patient litter basket by determining the required torque to maintain an orientation
in combination with
a first pair of gyroscopes producing a zero torque about roll and pitch axis’s while producing a non-zero torque about a yaw axis.
Therefor upon exhausting the art, it is concluded by the examiner for those reasons/stated above that inconsideration with deficiencies of the prior art, that applicant’s invention would be considered non-obvious in light of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 4 & 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 4, the closest prior art of record WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson teaches a patient litter basket with spin control. The litter basket of Nelson is provided with a thruster unit which include a plurality of gyroscopes. The combination structure present in claim 4 was not found in WIPO document 2021/016192 A2. Specifically, the limitation with respect to:
activating a first gyroscope to counteract counter act a torque of the patient litter basket by generating a gyroscopic counter torque, the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes
in combination with
the first gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a first sidewall extending vertically from a base of the patient litter basket.
The teachings of U.S. Patent Application 2010/0242169 A1 to McNulty teaches a body transfer system with yaw control. However, teachings were silent with respect to activating a first gyroscope to counteract counter act a torque of the patient litter basket by generating a gyroscopic counter torque, the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes
in combination with
the first gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a first sidewall extending vertically from a base of the patient litter basket.
The teaching of U.S. Patent Application 2017/0336807 to Ala teaches a gyroscopic attitude control system. While Ala may suggest an attitude control system includes one or more control moment gyro pairs, with gyros of individual of the pairs being counter-rotated to rotate the rotation axes of flywheels of the gyros of a gyro pair in opposite direction, the teachings are silent with respect to activating a first gyroscope to counteract counter act a torque of the patient litter basket by generating a gyroscopic counter torque, the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes
in combination with
the first gyroscope is disposed at least partially within a first sidewall extending vertically from a base of the patient litter basket.
U.S Patent Application 2015/0084320 to Hyde et. al (Hyde hereafter) discloses a stand up wheel chairs having automatic stability control. Hyde teaches a gyroscopic stabilization assembly with at least one gyroscope operable to apply a righting torque along at least one axis resulting in a net reduction in a change in the angular motion of the stand up wheel chair. However Hyde fails to teach gyroscopes positioned within the side wall of the patient litter.
Therefor upon exhausting the art, it is concluded by the examiner for those reasons/stated above that inconsideration with deficiencies of the prior art, that applicant’s invention would be considered non-obvious in light of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 04/27/2026, the Applicant argues,
Regarding claim 1 Ala discloses only two rotational axes and expressly teaches away from three rotational axes. In contrast, claim 1 recites "the first gyroscope comprising a first flywheel rotatable about three independent axes. Therefore, Applicant submits neither Nelson, nor McNulty, nor Ala, nor combinations of the same disclose or contemplate each and every element of claims 1, 10, and 18 as amended herein.
Regarding claim 18 he combination of Nelson and McNulty does not result in "a first gyroscope at least partially within a first sidewall" or "a second gyroscope at least partially within a second sidewall" at all. Further, the combination of Nelson and McNulty does not result in a gyroscope disposed within "a first sidewall" or "a second sidewall" wherein the plurality of sidewalls are described as "perpendicular to a base of the patient litter basket."
Therefore, Applicant submits neither Nelson, nor McNulty, nor Ala, nor combinations of the same disclose or contemplate each and every element of claims 1, 10, and 18 as amended herein. Applicant asserts the dependent claims are patentable for at least the same reasons as the independent claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 103 rejections of claims 4-20 be withdrawn.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons
1) Regarding claim 1, the examiner relies on the teachings of WIPO document 2021/016192 A2 to Nelson in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0084320 A1 to Hyde to form the basis of the rejection. The examiner highlights that Hyde discloses a gyroscope including a flywheel rotatable about three independent axes (Hyde 202-Fig.2; para [00056]).
2 Regarding claim 18 the examiner notes that Nelsons as modified by McNulty’s teaches disposing a first & second gyroscope at least partially within a first & second sidewall of the patient litter basket. The examiner highlights that element 140 & 150—Fig.1A of McNulty may be interpreted as side walls of the lift support because they are positioned on the sides of the main body of the structure and extend upward to a degree.
Dependent claims 19 & 20 are rejected as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 09/09/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights