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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 31-39, as well as tetrandrine in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 33-34 is 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.
Claim 34 recites that the active agent (wherein the elected specie of active agent is tetrandrine) is in a chemical form that does not occur in nature. It is unclear how the requirement of a form that does not exist in nature further limits the claim scope. The examiner presents the following arguments in support of this position.
The instant specification indicates that tetrandrine has the following chemical structure, as of page 39 of the instant specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
244
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, a further limitation limiting how the tetrandrine was obtained would appear to limit the process by which the claimed invention was formed rather than the claimed invention itself. This renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both a product and a process in the same claim is indefinite; see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will interpret claim 34 as a product-by-process claim, and will be interpreted in view of the guidance provided by MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) - Anticipation
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.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai et al. (Science, Vol. 347, Issue 6225, 2015, pages 995-998 and supplemental pages 1-13).
Sakurai et al. (hereafter referred to as Sakurai) teaches a treatment for Ebola, as of Sakurai, page 995, title and abstract. Sakurai indicates that tetrandrine is the most potent small molecule studied, as of Sakurai, page 995, abstract. Sakurai injected tetrandrine intraperitoneally into Ebola infected mice, as of Sakurai, supplemental page 8, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner best understands the above-reproduced text to teach administration of tetrandrine dissolved in PBS (phosphate buffered saline) to mice, along with a control group of administering PBS to mice alone in the absence of the tetrandrine; as such, PBS is understood to read on the required pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. Additionally, Sakurai provides the following data regarding in vivo experiments on Ebola-infected mice, as of Sakurai, page 997, figure 4, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
436
1010
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, Sakurai is understood to treat mice who are infected with Ebola with tetrandrine; this reads on the required antiviral method.
As to claim 32, the tetrandrine in a 100 μL injector, as taught by Sakurai, supplemental page 8, is understood to read on the required unit dose.
As to claim 33, as best understood by the examiner, tetrandrine does not occur naturally with phosphate buffered saline; as such, the combination of tetrandrine with phosphate buffered saline is understood to read on the limitations required by claim 33.
As to claim 34, the prior art appears to be silent as to whether the tetrandrine occurs in nature. Nevertheless, even if, purely en arguendo, the tetrandrine of the prior art were to occur in nature, this would not have been sufficient to have overcome the applied rejection. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113(I). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art is the same as that required by the instant claims. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art appears to be the same as that of the claimed invention; as such, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the tetrandrine taught by the prior art and that recited by the instant claims. See the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See also MPEP 2112 and 2112.01(I & II), which would appear to be relevant here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 31-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heister et al. (Pharmacological Research Perspectives, 2020;e00653, pages 1-8, published 15 September 2020) in view of Carroll (US 2014/0275137 A1).
Heister et al. (hereafter referred to as Heister) is drawn to the use of tetrandrine as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, as of Heister, page 1, title and abstract. Heister suggests oral dosing as of page 4, right column, first two paragraphs.
For the purposes of this rejection, the examiner understands that Heister fails to teach the required pharmaceutically acceptable excipient.
Carroll is drawn to a drug formulation of d-tetrandrine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, as of Carroll, title and abstract. Carroll teaches capsule formulations as of paragraph 0110 and paragraphs 0014-0028; these capsules appear to be for oral administration.
Carroll does not teach an antiviral method.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the dosage form of Carroll to have administered the tetrandrine of Heister. Heister teaches the use of tetrandrine as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19. While Heister is silent as to the pharmaceutical formulation used to administer the tetrandrine, Carroll teaches a pharmaceutical formulation that can be used to administer tetrandrine. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Heister in the formulation taught by Carroll in order to have predictably provided the tetrandrine to a patient suffering from a viral infection to have predictably achieved an antiviral method with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 31, the claim recites an antiviral method of treating a patient. Because Heister teaches that tetrandrine is a potential therapeutic agent for COVID-19, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Heister to a patient suffering from COVID-19 with a reasonable expectation that said tetrandrine would have successfully treated COVID-19 in said patient.
As to claim 31, the claim requires a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The materials taught by Carroll, paragraphs 0015-0028 appear to be pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
As to claim 32, the capsule taught by Carroll, at least paragraph 0014 would appear to read on the required unit dose.
As to claim 33, Carroll teaches various ingredients such as colloidal silicon dioxide in paragraph 0017 and microcrystalline cellulose in paragraph 0021 that do not occur naturally with tetrandrine.
As to claim 34, the prior art appears to be silent as to whether the tetrandrine occurs in nature. Nevertheless, even if, purely en arguendo, the tetrandrine of the prior art were to occur in nature, this would not have been sufficient to have overcome the applied rejection. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113(I). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art is the same as that required by the instant claims. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art appears to be the same as that of the claimed invention; as such, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the tetrandrine taught by the prior art and that recited by the instant claims. See the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See also MPEP 2112 and 2112.01(I & II), which would appear to be relevant here.
As to claim 35, Heister teaches treating COVID-19; as such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the method of Heister to a patient who has or is suspected of having COVID-19.
As to claim 36, the examiner notes that the virus that causes COVID-19 is SARS-CoV-2, as of Heister, page 1, title and abstract. As such, the method of the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the method of Heister to a patient who has or is suspected of having SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. COVID-19), which is a SARS coronavirus.
As to claim 38, Heister teaches the following regarding oral administration, as of page 4, right column, relevant text reproduced below with text highlighted by the examiner.
PNG
media_image4.png
294
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the capsule of Carroll would appear to be intended for oral administration.
As to claim 39, the composition of Carroll would appear to read on the required capsule.
Note Regarding Reference Date: The instant application claims benefit to multiple provisional applications, the earliest of which were filed on 17 September 2020. Heister appears to have been published on 15 September 2020; see the last page of the reference in which the examiner has provided the abstract of Heister. Relevant text from that page is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image5.png
436
900
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As such, Heister was published less than a year earlier than the earliest effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, Heister is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). There does not appear to be common inventors/authors or a common assignee between Heister and the instant application; as such, there appears to be no evidence that the exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A or B) are applicable.
Claim(s) 31-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (Journal of Virology, Vol. 93 Issue 12, June 2019, pages 1-15) in view of Carroll (US 2014/0275137 A1).
Shen et al. (hereafter referred to as Shen) is drawn to coronavirus inhibitors, as of Shen, page 1, title and abstract. Shen appears to have tested tetrandrine, as of page 4, Table 1, reproduced in part below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image6.png
446
970
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The relatively low EC50 taught by Shen for the OC43 human coronavirus would appear to indicate a high effectiveness against that particular virus.
Carroll is drawn to a drug formulation of d-tetrandrine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, as of Carroll, title and abstract. Carroll teaches capsule formulations as of paragraph 0110 and paragraphs 0014-0028; these capsules appear to be for oral administration.
Carroll does not teach an antiviral method.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the dosage form of Carroll to have administered the tetrandrine of Shen. Shen teaches the use of tetrandrine as a therapeutic agent for coronaviruses. While Shen is silent as to the pharmaceutical formulation used to administer the tetrandrine, Carroll teaches a pharmaceutical formulation that can be used to administer tetrandrine. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Shen in the formulation taught by Carroll in order to have predictably provided the tetrandrine to a patient suffering from a viral infection to have predictably achieved an antiviral method with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 31, the claim recites an antiviral method of treating a patient. Because Shen teaches that tetrandrine is a potential therapeutic agent for a coronavirus, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Shen to a patient suffering from an infection caused by a coronavirus with a reasonable expectation that said tetrandrine would have successfully treated the infection caused by a coronavirus in said patient. The examiner further takes the position that the in vitro data taught by Shen is sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of successful treatment in vivo. Obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability; see MPEP 2143.02, especially MPEP 2143.02(II). The in vitro data taught by Shen is sufficient to establish the reasonable expectation of success necessary to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
As to claim 31, the claim requires a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The materials taught by Carroll, paragraphs 0015-0028 appear to be pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
As to claim 32, the capsule taught by Carroll, at least paragraph 0014 would appear to read on the required unit dose.
As to claim 33, Carroll teaches various ingredients such as colloidal silicon dioxide in paragraph 0017 and microcrystalline cellulose in paragraph 0021 that do not occur naturally with tetrandrine.
As to claim 34, the prior art appears to be silent as to whether the tetrandrine occurs in nature. Nevertheless, even if, purely en arguendo, the tetrandrine of the prior art were to occur in nature, this would not have been sufficient to have overcome the applied rejection. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113(I). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art is the same as that required by the instant claims. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art appears to be the same as that of the claimed invention; as such, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the tetrandrine taught by the prior art and that recited by the instant claims. See the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See also MPEP 2112 and 2112.01(I & II), which would appear to be relevant here.
As to claim 35, Shen teaches treating a coronavirus; as such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the method of Shen to a patient who has or is suspected of having an infection caused by a coronavirus.
As to claim 36, the OC-43 virus taught by Shen is understood to read on the required common cold coronavirus.
As to claim 38, the capsule of Carroll would appear to be intended for oral administration.
As to claim 39, the composition of Carroll would appear to read on the required capsule.
Claim(s) 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heister et al. (Pharmacological Research Perspectives, 2020;e00653, pages 1-8, published 15 September 2020) in view of Carroll (US 2014/0275137 A1), the combination further in view of Alam et al. (Journal of Antivirals and Antiretrovirals, Vol. 8:4, 2016, pages 121-130).
Heister is drawn to tetrandrine as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19. Carroll is drawn to a tetrandrine capsule as a drug delivery form. See the rejection above over Heister in view of Carroll. Heister also teaches that tetrandrine is a calcium channel blocker, as of Heister, page 1, abstract.
None of these references teach tetrandrine for treating influenza.
Alam et al. (hereafter referred to as Alam) teaches verapamil as a therapeutic agent for influenza, as of Alam, page 121, title and abstract. The therapeutic activity of verapamil against influenza is attributed to its being a calcium channel blocker. This appears to occur by reducing the ERK signaling cascade, as of Alam, page 121, left column, last full paragraph.
Alam does not teach tetrandrine.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have tried to use tetrandrine, as of Heister, for the treatment of influenza, as of Alam. Heister is drawn to tetrandrine, and indicates that it is a calcium channel blocker. Alam teaches that calcium channel blockers have anti-influenza effects by reducing the ERK signaling cascade. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Heister to a patient suffering from influenza to have predictably reduced the ERK signaling cascade, thereby predictably lessening the effects of the influenza virus with a reasonable expectation of success and predictably having an anti-influenza effect with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 35, Alam teaches influenza, as of page 121, title.
As to claim 37, Alam teaches influenza A, as of page 121, left column, first paragraph in “introduction” section.
Claim(s) 31-34 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (Science, Vol. 347, Issue 6225, 2015, pages 995-998 and S1-S13) in view of Davey et al. (US Patent 8,889,743) and Carroll (US 2014/0275137 A1).
Sakurai et al. (hereafter referred to as Sakurai) teaches a treatment for Ebola, as of Sakurai, page 995, title and abstract. Sakurai indicates that tetrandrine is the most potent small molecule studied, as of Sakurai, page 995, abstract. Sakurai injected tetrandrine intraperitoneally into Ebola infected mice, as of Sakurai, supplemental page 8, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Sakurai provides the following data regarding in vivo experiments on Ebola-infected mice, as of Sakurai, page 997, figure 4, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
436
1010
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, Sakurai is understood to treat mice who are infected with Ebola with tetrandrine. Sakurai also teaches the following as of page 998, right column, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image7.png
316
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Purely en arguendo and for the purposes of this rejection, the examiner understands that the data on supplemental page 8 of Sakurai is insufficient to establish that the tetrandrine was administered with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient.
Davey et al. (hereafter referred to as Davey) is drawn to a method of treating an infection caused by a filovirus, as of Davey, title and abstract, with Ebola pointed out in the graph on the front page of Davey. Davey teaches the following modes of administration, as of column 10, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image8.png
58
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The examiner decided not to reject the instant claims as anticipated by Davey because Davey teaches treatment with “tetrandine” as of Davey, column 6 lines 7-11, and it appears to be unclear at first glance whether this is the same as the required “tetrandrine.” Additionally, while Davey suggests a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or excipient as of column 10 lines 20-22, Davey appears to be silent regarding the chemical identity of the excipient and does not appear to suggest an excipient for oral administration, as required by claims 38-39.
Carroll is drawn to a drug formulation of d-tetrandrine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, as of Carroll, title and abstract. Carroll teaches capsule formulations as of paragraph 0110 and paragraphs 0014-0028; these capsules appear to be for oral administration.
Carroll does not teach an antiviral method.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the dosage form of Carroll to have administered the tetrandrine of Sakurai. Sakurai teaches the use of tetrandrine as a therapeutic agent for Ebola virus. While Shen is unclear as to the pharmaceutical formulation used to administer the tetrandrine, Carroll teaches a pharmaceutical formulation that can be used to administer tetrandrine, and Davey, which is cited by Sakurai, teaches that any method standard in the art can be used to administer the active agent. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have administered the tetrandrine of Sakurai orally in the formulation taught by Carroll in order to have predictably provided the tetrandrine to a patient suffering from an Ebola infection to have predictably achieved an anti-Ebola method with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have done this because Davey teaches the use of any mode of administration standard in the art, and the oral administration of Carroll is standard in the art.
As to claim 31, the claim requires a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The materials taught by Carroll, paragraphs 0015-0028 appear to be pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
As to claim 32, the capsule taught by Carroll, at least paragraph 0014 would appear to required on the required unit dose.
As to claim 33, Carroll teaches various ingredients such as colloidal silicon dioxide in paragraph 0017 and microcrystalline cellulose in paragraph 0021 that do not occur naturally with tetrandrine.
As to claim 34, the prior art appears to be silent as to whether the tetrandrine occurs in nature. Nevertheless, even if, purely en arguendo, the tetrandrine of the prior art were to occur in nature, this would not have been sufficient to have overcome the applied rejection. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113(I). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art is the same as that required by the instant claims. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II). In this case, the tetrandrine of the prior art appears to be the same as that of the claimed invention; as such, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the tetrandrine taught by the prior art and that recited by the instant claims. See the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See also MPEP 2112 and 2112.01(I & II), which would appear to be relevant here.
As to claim 38, the capsule of Carroll would appear to be intended for oral administration.
As to claim 39, the composition of Carroll would appear to read on the required capsule.
Additional Cited Prior Art
As additional relevant prior art, the examiner cites Bauta et al. (US 2018/0303823 A1). Bauta et al. (hereafter referred to as Bauta) suggests drug dosages comprising cepharanthine and tetrandrine, presumably for enteric (i.e. oral) delivery, as of Bauta, title and abstract. Bauta suggests treating viral infections such as those caused by filoviruses like Ebola, as of Bauta, paragraphs 0002-0003.
Bauta is not anticipatory with respect to the elected species of tetrandrine at least because the compositions administered by Bauta in the methods of Examples 6 and 7 appear to comprise cepharanthine but do not appear to comprise tetrandrine; see Bauta, page 12, Examples 6 and 7. Additionally, Examples 6 and 7 appear to be drawn to administering cepharanthine to healthy rats rather than rats suffering from a viral infection; as such, this method cannot be considered to anticipate the required antiviral method.
As such, Bauta appears to be similar to, but no better than, Sakurai and Davey in that Bauta suggests using tetrandrine to treat Ebola. In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03, third paragraph.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612