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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “a corpse” in line 8 of the claim should be “the corpse”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a device to get higher” in claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 20 is unclear what device application is referring to. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining what a device to get higher would be acceptable. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should note that the dependent claims are also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis (WO 9945881 A1) in view of Baer et al. (DE 4224036 C1, mapped by translated copy attached), hereinafter referred to as “Baer”.
Regarding Claim 1, Gailis teaches a medical examination system (A down draught autopsy table, see Abstract) comprising:
a corpse receiving station (autopsy table 10) including a base portion (floor standing support 15) and an upper portion (body tray support frame 11), wherein the upper portion is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion to adjust height of a corpse located thereon (the support 15 is preferably telescopic in construction so that the height of frame 11 may be adjusted, see pg. 4 ln 11-12) to account for height of a medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the corpse receiving station (intended use: Gailis's telescoping support device can be used for multiple functions which would include lowering or raising the autopsy table to take pictures); and
a gurney assembly having a wheeled base (a height adjustable trolley carrying a body tray 120 is wheeled into the passageway 14 until the far end of the tray is located adjacent the column 15, see pg. 5 ln 20-22) and a tray detachably disposed thereon (body tray 120 being transferred from trolley to table 10, pg. 1 ln 17-21), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of receiving a corpse on the tray and transporting the corpse (bodies are normally stored in refrigerators on body trays and the normal practice is to load a body tray carrying a body onto a wheeled trolley, wheel the trolley to the autopsy table and then transfer the body from the body tray and onto the table top for an autopsy to be performed, see pg. 1 ln 17-21), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of being disposed over the corpse receiving station so that the tray is located over the upper portion thereof (the trolley carries the tray at a height above the engagement means 20 of the table 10, see pg. 5 ln 22-23), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of being wheeled over the corpse receiving station from a first end thereof (wheeled into the passageway 14, see pg. 5 ln 20-21); and enable the wheeled base to be removed and leave the tray on the upper portion (the tray is now in position to act as the table top for table 10 and the trolley is removed, pg. 5 ln 25-26).
However, Gailis does not explicitly disclose wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion to lift the tray from the wheeled base.
Baer teaches a medical examination system (see Abstract; Figure 1) having a body receiving station (table frame 4) with a patient support plate thereon (second support plate 5), a gurney (chassis 1) having a tray (first support plate 3) for bringing a patient (3) to body receiving station (table frame 4), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of being wheeled over the body receiving station from a first end thereof (a transfer can take place in such a way that the chassis 1 , which is designed with a U-shaped frame, is moved towards the table frame 4 in such a way that the U-shaped frame encloses the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 36-41); wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion to lift the tray from the wheeled base (the chassis 1 is arranged in such a position with respect to the table frame 4 that the now located above the second mounting plate 5 and the first mounting plate 2 can be taken over. The acquisition can take place by the second mounting plate 5 being raised via a lifting device arranged in the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 39-43).
Gailis and Baer are analogous art because both disclose a medical examination system comprising gurney assembly to transport a body to a receiving station.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to tray transferring system of Gailis and further include herein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion to lift the tray from the wheeled base, as taught by Baer. Baer teaches the object of the invention is therefore a patient position execution device of the type mentioned so then that preparing to examine an object under investigation is less time and personnel consuming (see pg. 2 ln 9-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Gailis and Baer teaches all the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Gailis further teaches at least one air intake vent (the upper wall 38 of each arm 12 is preferably formed from an elongate perforated strip of said metal in order to define a ventilation grille for permitting flow of air into me plenum chamber of the arm, see pg. 6 ln 20-22). However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose wherein the base portion of the corpse receiving station includes at least one air intake vent disposed near a bottom thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one air intake vent to be located on the base portion of the corpse receiving station since the claims to an air intake vent which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the at least one air intake vent would not have modified the operation of the device (acts to draw air in through the grille and so draws air borne contaminants such as unpleasant odors or viruses away). The particular placement of the aperture would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 10, Gailis teaches a method for examining and dissecting a corpse (a down draught autopsy table, see Abstract), the method comprising:
providing a gurney assembly having a wheeled base (a height adjustable trolley carrying a body tray 120 is wheeled into the passageway 14 until the far end of the tray is located adjacent the column 15, see pg. 5 ln 20-22) and a tray detachably disposed thereon (body tray 120 being transferred from trolley to table 10, pg. 1 ln 17-21);
providing a corpse receiving station (autopsy table 10) having a base portion (floor standing support 15) and an upper portion (body tray support frame 11), wherein the upper portion is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion (body tray support frame 11);
placing a corpse on the tray of the gurney assembly (bodies are normally stored in refrigerators on body trays and the normal practice is to load a body tray carrying a body onto a wheeled trolley, pg. 1 ln 17-21);
wheeling the gurney assembly over the corpse receiving station from a first end thereof (wheeled into the passageway 14, see pg. 5 ln 20-21) so as to be disposed over the corpse receiving station with the tray located over the upper portion of the corpse receiving station (the trolley carries the tray at a height above the engagement means 20 of the table 10, see pg. 5 ln 22-23);
removing the wheeled base from the corpse receiving station without the tray in order to leave the tray and the corpse on the upper portion of the corpse receiving station (the tray is now in position to act as the table top for table 10 and the trolley is removed, pg. 5 ln 25-26); and
adjusting height of the upper portion to locate corpse at appropriate height (the support 15 is preferably telescopic in construction so that the height of frame 11 may be adjusted, see pg. 4 ln 11-12) for height of a medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken of the corpse from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the corpse (intended use: Gailis's telescoping support device can be used for multiple functions which would include lowering or raising the autopsy table to take pictures).
However, Gailis does not explicitly disclose vertically raising the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to lift the tray from the wheeled base to detach the tray from the wheeled base.
Baer teaches a medical examination system (see Abstract; Figure 1) having a body receiving station (table frame 4) with a patient support plate thereon (second support plate 5), a gurney (chassis 1) having a tray (first support plate 3) for bringing a patient (3) to body receiving station (table frame 4), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of being wheeled over the body receiving station from a first end thereof (a transfer can take place in such a way that the chassis 1 , which is designed with a U-shaped frame, is moved towards the table frame 4 in such a way that the U-shaped frame encloses the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 36-41); and vertically raising the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to lift the tray from the wheeled base to detach the tray from the wheeled base (the chassis 1 is arranged in such a position with respect to the table frame 4 that the now located above the second mounting plate 5 and the first mounting plate 2 can be taken over. The acquisition can take place by the second mounting plate 5 being raised via a lifting device arranged in the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 39-43)
Gailis and Baer are analogous art because both disclose a medical examination system comprising gurney assembly to transport a body to a receiving station.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to tray transferring system of Gailis and further include vertically raising the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to lift the tray from the wheeled base to detach the tray from the wheeled base, as taught by Baer. Baer teaches the object of the invention is therefore a patient position execution device of the type mentioned so then that preparing to examine an object under investigation is less time and personnel consuming (see pg. 2 ln 9-10).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis and Baer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 4980956 A), hereinafter referred to as “Fischer”.
Regarding Claim 2, Gailis and Baer teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Gailis further teaches wherein the upper portion (11) of the corpse receiving station (10) includes a basin (receptacle 16) at a second end of the upper portion (end wall 80, see Figure 1);
the upper portion is slopped toward the basin so fluids from the corpse will flow in that direction (the support shoulders 21 are inclined so that the body tray 120 is inclined downwardly toward the column 15, this enables body fluids to drain toward the receptacle 16, see pg. 5 ln 14-16); and
the tray (120) includes a hole (121) in an end thereof that will allow body fluids to drain into the basin (a drain 121 is provided in the tray 120 through which fluids may be discharged into a receptacle 16 mounted on column 15, see pg. 5 ln 16-18).
However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose the basin will not be covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion.
Fischer teaches a cadaver preparation station (see Figure 1) comprising a corpse receiving station (10) having a base portion (tray support 30) and a upper portion (a cadaver tray 20) and basin (embalming sink 51) such that the basin will not be covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion (the cadaver tray positioned to extend partially over a wall unit 50 to drain fluid via drain 21, see Figure 1).
Gailis, Baer, and Fischer are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system comprising a table.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper portion of the corpse receiving station of Modified Gailis and further include wherein the basin is not covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion, as taught by Fischer. Fischer teaches it beneficial for the basin to not be covered because the basin is provided with a water flush arrangement to ensure that the materials which are deposited in the sink are washed away and caused to flow through the drain thereof. In a preferred embodiment, the water flush arrangement is of the rim flush type which supplies a water flush which covers essentially the entire surface of the sink. Thus, any formaldehyde which is splashed on the sink from the tray is washed away, thereby reducing the generation of fumes. The front rim of the sink is preferably configured to facilitate installation of the tray immediately thereover (see Col. 4 ln 20-31).
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis and Baer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinot et al. (US 5899469 A), hereinafter referred to as “Pinot”.
Regarding Claim 4, Gailis and Baer teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Baer further teaches wherein the base portion of the corpse receiving station includes indentations running laterally along each side thereof (see below) ,wherein the indentations enable wheels on the wheeled base of the gurney assembly to move freely (chassis 1 moves under the indentations of table frame 4, see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose the wheeled base of the gurney assembly to rotate 360-degrees.
Pinot teaches a substantially rectangular vehicle (22) moveable on four casters (47A-B and 49A-B) located in the four corners underneath the vehicle (see Figure 1); wherein the indentations enable casters on the wheeled base of the gurney assembly to rotate 360-degrees (all four casters 47a 47b 49a 49b rotate freely, see Col. 5 ln 28-29).
Gailis, Baer, and Pinot are analogous art because all teach a wheeled base of a gurney like device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the gurney wheels of Modified Gailis and replace them with casters that rotate 360 degrees, as taught by Pinot. Pinot teaches such a vehicle having a substantially rectangular configuration with casters in each corner of the rectangle beneath the vehicle wherein the vehicle is easily steered manually on a straight course in a chosen direction and also free to move in any direction when desired by a single operator (see Col. 2 ln 30-36).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 4 and Gailis further teaches at least one ventilation air inlet (the upper wall 38 of each arm 12 is preferably formed from an elongate perforated strip of said metal in order to define a ventilation grille for permitting flow of air into me plenum chamber of the arm, see pg. 6 ln 20-22). Baer further teaches wherein the indentations include a ceiling portion (see above). However, Gailis, Baer, and Pinot do not explicitly disclose the least one ventilation air inlet disposed in at least one of the ceiling portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one air intake vent to be located on the base portion in at least one of the ceiling portions of the corpse receiving station since the claims to an air intake vent which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the at least one air intake vent would not have modified the operation of the device (acts to draw air in through the grille and so draws air borne contaminants such as unpleasant odors or viruses away). The particular placement of the aperture would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claims 6, 8-9, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis and Baer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang et al. (CN 208838453 U), hereinafter referred to as “Zhuang”.
Regarding Claim 6, Gailis and Baer teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station, wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion and an upper portion, wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station includes a perforated surface.
Zhuang teaches a multifunctional animal dissecting table (see Figure 1) an organ dissecting station (second operation table 2) arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station (arranged perpendicular to first operation table 1) and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station (see Figure 1), wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion (rectangular base at the bottom of table 2, see Figure 1) and an upper portion (chute 21 with sliding table 22, see), wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station includes a perforated surface (top surface 222 is perforated, see Figure 1).
Gailis, Baer, and Zhuang are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify medical examination station of Modified Gailis and further include a an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station, as taught by Zhuang. Zhuang teaches its beneficial to have an ingenious design, simple structure, the dissecting and sample station are organically combined to a whole, after the part of anatomical dissection can be directly placed on the sliding table slides to the sampling position for sampling, shorten the distance moving anatomical part; movement reduces the possibility of being polluted, meanwhile, the anatomical portion of the sliding table on the blood and will not generate water drop, at the same time the sliding moving way of the structure relative to the mode of manual handling, greatly reducing the labor intensity, simple operation (see pg. 2 second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitation as discussed above in claim 6 and Zhuang further teaches wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station (the chute 21 is slidably provided with a slide table 22 with respect to base of table 2, see pg. 4 paragraph 2) so the organ dissecting station and the corpse receiving station can substantially contact each other or create a space therebetween sufficient to enable the medical examiner to pass therethrough (the slide table 22 can be capable of taking out from the chute 21 of the structure, also can be not can be taken out of the structure, see pg. 4 paragraph 3; when the table 22 is in chute 21, the first operation table 1 and second operation 2 contact each other to form a L shape work area for a person to pass through, see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitation as discussed above in claim 6 and Zhuang further teaches wherein the organ dissecting station includes at least one air intake vent (each of the slot 11 of the inner side wall is provided with a group of airholes 13. The air 13 through an air tube (not shown) connected to the exhaust device (not shown), see last paragraph of pg. 3). However, Modified Gailis does not explicitly disclose the air intake vent disposed near a bottom of the base portion of the organ dissecting station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one air intake vent to be l disposed near a bottom of the base portion of the organ dissecting station since the claims to an air intake vent which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the at least one air intake vent would not have modified the operation of the device (acts to draw air in through the grille and so draws air borne contaminants such as unpleasant odors or viruses away). The particular placement of the aperture would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 11, Gailis and Baer teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10. However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose providing an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to corpse receiving station and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station, wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion and an upper portion, and wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station; placing organs removed from the corpse onto the upper portion of the organ dissecting station; and horizontally adjusting the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to create a space between the corpse receiving station and the organ dissecting station sufficient to enable the medical examiner to pass therethrough.
Zhuang teaches a multifunctional animal dissecting table (see Figure 1) an organ dissecting station (second operation table 2) arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station (arranged perpendicular to first operation table 1) and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station (see Figure 1), wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion (rectangular base at the bottom of table 2, see Figure 1) and an upper portion (chute 21 with sliding table 22), and wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station (the chute 21 is slidably provided with a slide table 22 with respect to base of table 2, see pg. 4 paragraph 2); placing organs removed from the corpse onto the upper portion of the organ dissecting station (the part of anatomical dissection can be directly placed on the sliding table, see pg. 2 second to last paragraph); and horizontally adjusting the upper portion of the corpse receiving station (slides to the sampling position for sampling, see pg. 2 second to last paragraph) to create a space between the corpse receiving station and the organ dissecting station sufficient to enable the medical examiner to pass therethrough (the slide table 22 can be capable of taking out from the chute 21 of the structure, also can be not can be taken out of the structure, see pg. 4 paragraph 3; when the table 22 is in chute 21, the first operation table 1 and second operation 2 contact each other to form a L shape work area for a person to pass, see Figure 1).
Claim 7 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis, Baer, and Zhuang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Corona et al. (US 20170360639 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Corona”.
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 6. However, Modified Gailis does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station to account for height of the medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the organ dissecting station.
Corona teaches an organ dissecting station (grossing station 30) comprising an upper portion (work surface area 52, see Figure 1) and a base portion (base 32) wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station (a lifting mechanism 58 may be arranged between the base 3 and the table 52 of the grossing station 30 to adjust the table to different heights, see Paragraph [0060]; Figure 5) to account for height of the medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the organ dissecting station (to be adjusted to any number of predetermined heights to accommodate different size users conducting the pathology procedures on the grossing station 30, see Paragraph [0060]).
Gailis, Baer, Zhuang, and Corona are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper portion of the organ dissecting station and further include herein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station, as taught by Corona. Corona teaches the user may be able to adjust the height of the table top work surface of the grossing station 30 to fit his or her height. Thus, any user of the grossing station 30, either tall or short, may adjust the work surface for more ergonomic satisfaction with relation to their height (see Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Gailis and Baer teaches all for the limitations as discussed above in claim 10. However, Gailis and Baer do not explicitly disclose providing an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to corpse receiving station and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station, wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion and an upper portion; and placing organs removed from the corpse onto the upper portion of the organ dissecting station.
Zhuang teaches a multifunctional animal dissecting table (see Figure 1) comprising an organ dissecting station (second operation table 2) arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station (arranged perpendicular to first operation table 1) and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station (see Figure 1), wherein the organ dissecting station includes a base portion (rectangular base at the bottom of table 2, see Figure 1) and an upper portion (chute 21 with sliding table 22); and placing organs removed from the corpse onto the upper portion of the organ dissecting station (the part of anatomical dissection can be directly placed on the sliding table, see pg. 2 second to last paragraph).
Gailis, Baer, and Zhuang are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the medical examination system of Modified Gailis and further include an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to corpse receiving station and in close proximity to a second end of the corpse receiving station, as taught by Zhuang. Zhuang teaches the invention has ingenious design, simple structure, the dissecting and sample station are organically combined to a whole, after the part of anatomical dissection can be directly placed on the sliding table slides to the sampling position for sampling, shorten the distance moving anatomical part; movement reduces the possibility of being polluted, meanwhile, the anatomical portion of the sliding table on the blood and will not generate water drop, at the same time the sliding moving way of the structure relative to the mode of manual handling, greatly reducing the labor intensity, simple operation (see pg. 2 second to last paragraph).
Gailis, Baer, and Zhuang teaches all of the limitations as discussed above. However, Modified Gailis does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station; and adjusting height of the upper portion of the organ dissecting station to locate the organs at appropriate height for height of the medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken of the organs from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the organs.
Corona teaches an organ dissecting station (grossing station 30) comprising an upper portion (work surface area 52, see Figure 1) and a base portion (base 32) wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station (a lifting mechanism 58 may be arranged between the base 3 and the table 52 of the grossing station 30 to adjust the table to different heights, see Paragraph [0060]; Figure 5); and adjusting height of the upper portion of the organ dissecting station to locate the organs at appropriate height for height of the medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken of the organs from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the organs (to be adjusted to any number of predetermined heights to accommodate different size users conducting the pathology procedures on the grossing station 30, see Paragraph [0060]).
Gailis, Baer, Zhuang, and Corona are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper portion of the organ dissecting station and further include herein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station, as taught by Corona. Corona teaches the user may be able to adjust the height of the table top work surface of the grossing station 30 to fit his or her height. Thus, any user of the grossing station 30, either tall or short, may adjust the work surface for more ergonomic satisfaction with relation to their height (see Paragraph [0064]).
Claims 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis (WO 9945881 A1) in view of Zhuang (CN 208838453 U).
Regarding Claim 13, Gailis teaches a medical examination system (a down draught autopsy table, see Abstract) comprising:
a corpse receiving station (autopsy table 10)including a base portion (floor standing support 15) and an upper portion (body tray support frame 11), wherein the upper portion includes a basin (receptacle 16) at a first end thereof (end wall 80) and the upper portion is slopped toward the basin so fluids from a corpse located thereon will flow into the basin (the support shoulders 21 are inclined so that the body tray 120 is inclined downwardly toward the column 15, this enables body fluids to drain toward the receptacle 16, see pg. 5 ln 14-16).
However, Gailis does not explicitly disclose an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station and in close proximity to the first end of the corpse receiving station, wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally-adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station so the organ dissecting station and the corpse receiving station can substantially contact each other or create a space therebetween sufficient to enable the medical examiner to pass therethrough.
Zhuang teaches a multifunctional animal dissecting table (see Figure 1) an organ dissecting station (second operation table 2) arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station (arranged perpendicular to first operation table 1) and in close proximity to the first end of the corpse receiving station (see Figure 1), wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally adjustable with respect to the base portion of the organ dissecting station (the chute 21 is slidably provided with a slide table 22 with respect to base of table 2, see pg. 4 paragraph 2) so the organ dissecting station and the corpse receiving station can substantially contact each other or create a space therebetween sufficient to enable the medical examiner to pass therethrough (the slide table 22 can be capable of taking out from the chute 21 of the structure, also can be not can be taken out of the structure, see pg. 4 paragraph 3; when the table 22 is in chute 21, the first operation table 1 and second operation 2 contact each other to form a L shape work area for a person to pass through, see Figure 1).
Gailis and Zhuang are analogous art because both teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the medical examination system of Gailis and further include an organ dissecting station arranged substantially perpendicular to the corpse receiving station and in close proximity to the first end of the corpse receiving station, wherein the upper portion of the organ dissecting station is selectively horizontally-adjustable, as taught by Zhuang. Zhuang teaches the invention has ingenious design, simple structure, the dissecting and sample station are organically combined to a whole, after the part of anatomical dissection can be directly placed on the sliding table slides to the sampling position for sampling, shorten the distance moving anatomical part; movement reduces the possibility of being polluted, meanwhile, the anatomical portion of the sliding table on the blood and will not generate water drop, at the same time the sliding moving way of the structure relative to the mode of manual handling, greatly reducing the labor intensity, simple operation (see pg. 2 second to last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14, Gailis and Zhuang teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 13 and Gailis further teaches wherein the upper portion is selectively vertically adjustable with respect to the base portion to adjust height of a corpse located thereon (the support 15 is preferably telescopic in construction so that the height of frame 11 may be adjusted, see pg. 4 ln 11-12) to account for height of a medical examiner and to enable pictures to be taken from above without requiring the medical examiner to use a device to get higher than the corpse receiving station (intended use: Gails's telescoping support device can be used for multiple functions which would include lowering or raising the autopsy table to take pictures).
Regarding Claim 19, Gailis and Zhuang teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 13 and Gailis further teaches at least one air intake vent (the upper wall 38 of each arm 12 is preferably formed from an elongate perforated strip of said metal in order to define a ventilation grille for permitting flow of air into me plenum chamber of the arm, see pg. 6 ln 20-22). However, Gailis and Zhuang do not explicitly disclose wherein at least one air intake vent is disposed in at least one of the base portion of the corpse receiving station and the base portion of the organ dissecting station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one air intake vent to be located on the base portion of the corpse receiving station and the base portion of the organ dissecting station since the claims to an air intake vent which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the at least one air intake vent would not have modified the operation of the device (acts to draw air in through the grille and so draws air borne contaminants such as unpleasant odors or viruses away). The particular placement of the aperture would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis and Zhuang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Baer (DE 4224036 C1, mapped by translated copy attached).
Regarding Claim 15, Gailis and Zhuang teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 14 and Gailis further teaches a gurney assembly having a wheeled base (a height adjustable trolley carrying a body tray 120 is wheeled into the passageway 14 until the far end of the tray is located adjacent the column 15, see pg. 5 ln 20-22) and a tray detachably disposed thereon (body tray 120 being transferred from trolley to table 10, pg. 1 ln 17-21), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of receiving a corpse on the tray and transporting the corpse (bodies are normally stored in refrigerators on body trays and the normal practice is to load a body tray carrying a body onto a wheeled trolley, wheel the trolley to the autopsy table and then transfer the body from the body tray and onto the table top for an autopsy to be performed, see pg. 1 ln 17-21), including wheeling over the corpse receiving station from a second end thereof (wheeled into the passageway 14, see pg. 5 ln 20-21) so the tray is disposed over the upper portion of the corpse receiving station (the trolley carries the tray at a height above the engagement means 20 of the table 10, see pg. 5 ln 22-23), wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base (body tray 120 being transferred from trolley to table 10, pg. 1 ln 17-21); and enable the wheeled base to be removed and leave the tray on the upper portion (the tray is now in position to act as the table top for table 10 and the trolley is removed, pg. 5 ln 25-26).
However, Gailis and Zhuang do not explicitly disclose wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to lift the tray from the wheeled base.
Baer teaches a medical examination system (see Abstract; Figure 1) having a body receiving station (table frame 4) with a patient support plate thereon (second support plate 5), a gurney (chassis 1) having a tray (first support plate 3) for bringing a patient (3) to body receiving station (table frame 4), wherein the gurney assembly is capable of being wheeled over the body receiving station from a first end thereof (a transfer can take place in such a way that the chassis 1 , which is designed with a U-shaped frame, is moved towards the table frame 4 in such a way that the U-shaped frame encloses the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 36-41); wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion to lift the tray from the wheeled base (the chassis 1 is arranged in such a position with respect to the table frame 4 that the now located above the second mounting plate 5 and the first mounting plate 2 can be taken over. The acquisition can take place by the second mounting plate 5 being raised via a lifting device arranged in the table frame 4, see pg. 2 ln 39-43).
Gailis, Zhuang, and Baer are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to tray transferring system of Modified Gailis and further include wherein the tray is capable of being detached from the wheeled base by vertically raising the upper portion of the corpse receiving station to lift the tray from the wheeled base, as taught by Baer. Baer teaches the object of the invention is therefore a patient position execution device of the type mentioned so then that preparing to examine an object under investigation is less time and personnel consuming (see pg. 2 ln 9-10).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis, Zhuang, and Baer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 4980956 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 15 and Gailis further teaches wherein the tray (120) includes a hole (121) in an end thereof that will allow body fluids to drain into the basin (a drain 121 is provided in the tray 120 through which fluids may be discharged into a receptacle 16 mounted on column 15, see pg. 5 ln 16-18).
However, Modified Gailis does not explicitly disclose wherein the basin will not be covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion.
Fischer teaches a cadaver preparation station (see Figure 1) comprising: a corpse receiving station (10) having a base portion (tray support 30) and a upper portion (a cadaver tray 20) and basin (embalming sink 51) such that the basin will not be covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion (the cadaver tray positioned to extend partially over a wall unit 50 to drain fluid via drain 21, see Figure 1 ).
Gailis, Zhuang, Baer, and Fischer are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper portion of the corpse receiving station and further include wherein the basin will not be covered by the tray when the tray is located on the upper portion, as taught by Fischer. Fischer teaches the basin/sink is provided with a water flush arrangement to ensure that the materials which are deposited in the sink are washed away and caused to flow through the drain thereof. In a preferred embodiment, the water flush arrangement is of the rim flush type which supplies a water flush which covers essentially the entire surface of the sink. Thus, any formaldehyde which is splashed on the sink from the tray is washed away, thereby reducing the generation of fumes. The front rim of the sink is preferably configured to facilitate installation of the tray immediately thereover (see Col. 4 ln 20-31).
Claims 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailis, Zhuang, and Baer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Pinot et al. (US 5899469 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 15 and Baer further teaches wherein the base portion of the corpse receiving station includes indentations running laterally along each side thereof (see above), wherein the indentations enable wheels on the wheeled base of the gurney assembly to move freely (chassis 1 moves under the indentations of table frame 4, see Figure 2).
Pinot teaches a substantially rectangular vehicle (22) moveable on four casters (47A-B and 49A-B) located in the four corners underneath the vehicle (see Figure 1); wherein the indentations enable casters on the wheeled base of the gurney assembly to rotate 360-degrees (all four casters 47a 47b 49a 49b rotate freely, see Col. 5 ln 28-29).
Gailis, Zhuang, Baer, and Pinot are analogous art because all teach a medical examination system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the gurney wheels of Modified Gailis and replace them with casters that rotate 360 degrees, as taught by Pinot. Pinot teaches such a vehicle having a substantially rectangular configuration with casters in each corner of the rectangle beneath the vehicle wherein the vehicle is easily steered manually on a straight course in a chosen direction and also free to move in any direction when desired by a single operator (see Col. 2 ln 30-36).
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Gailis teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 17 and Gailis further teaches at least one ventilation air inlet (the upper wall 38 of each arm 12 is preferably formed from an elongate perforated strip of said metal in order to define a ventilation grille for permitting flow of air into me plenum chamber of the arm, see pg. 6 ln 20-22). Baer further teaches wherein the indentations include a ceiling portion (see above).
However, Gailis, Zhuang, Baer, and Pinot do not explicitly disclose the least one ventilation air inlet disposed in at least one of the ceiling portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one air intake vent to be located on the base portion in at least one of the ceiling portions of the corpse receiving station since the claims to an air intake vent which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the at least one air intake vent would not have modified the operation of the device (acts to draw air in through the grille and so draws air borne contaminants such as unpleasant odors or viruses away). The particular placement of the aperture would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USP