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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119€ or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The earliest possible effective filing date for the instant claims is 12/10/2020 based on the filing date of the provisional application 63/123,564.
Status of Claims
The finality of the Office Action issued 6/17/2026 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 12, 19, 21, 27, 32-33, 40, 42-46, 54, 56, 58-60, 63 are pending.
Claims 42 and 44 are canceled.
Claim 1 is amended via After-Final submission which is herein indicated to be entered.
Claims 1-5, 12, 19, 21, 27, 32-33, 40, 43, 45-46, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63 are under consideration.
Due to the new rejections below, this Action is a Non-Final Action.
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 1-5, 12, 19, 21, 27, 32-33, 40, 43, 45-46, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63 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.
See claims 1-5, 12, 19, 21, 27, 32-33, 40, 43, 45-46, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the TFF product has an infectivity of greater than or equal to 2.4x106 ifu/mL". However, the specification only discloses the following: an infectivity of greater than or equal to about 2.4x109 ifu/mL (p. 25)[104-106]; Table 1, infectivity ≥2.4 × 108 ifu/ml [0098], Table 2, infectivity ≥2.4 × 109 ifu/ml [0107], and example 2, Table 5 [0163]. The specification does not disclose greater than or equal to 2.4x106 ifu/mL. It is unclear if the claim has a typo and should read infectivity of greater than or equal to about 2.4x109 ifu/mL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman et al. (Weggeman 2005)(WO2005080556A2) in view of (Leo de Vocht)(US8470585B2)(both previously cited) and Hagner-McWhirter (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited) as evidenced by Vicente et al. (Vicente)(See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited) and Hirai (Hirai et al.)(See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
See claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Regarding claim 1, 3, Weggeman 2005 teaches reference claim 1, A method for the purification of a virus from a host cell, said method comprising in the given order the steps of: a) culturing host cells that are infected with a virus, e.g., as stated in reference claim 4, a recombinant adenovirus. Weggeman 2005 teaches reference claim 2, A method according to claim 1, said method further comprising: d) clarification of the lysate and reference claim 8, A method according to any one of claims 2-7, wherein step d) comprises depth filtration and membrane filtration. Weggeman 2005 teaches reference claim 3, A method according to claim 1 or claim 2, said method further comprising: e) further purifying the virus with at least one chromatography step and reference claim 12, A method according to any one of claims 4-11, wherein step e) comprises anion exchange chromatography. Weggeman 2005 teaches in the specification, UF/DF can be used to concentrate and/or buffer exchange the virus suspensions according to the present invention in different stadia of the purification process, e.g. the lysate and/or further purified virus suspensions such as those that have undergone chromatography (p. 23). Thus, in an embodiment, Weggeman 2005 suggests a method of clarification of the lysate (reference claim 2) followed by anion exchange chromatography (reference claims 3 and 12) followed by UF/DF.
Regarding claim 5, 12, Weggeman 2005 teaches claim 1, A method for the purification of a virus from a host cell, said method comprising in the given order the steps of: a) culturing host cells that are infected with a virus, b) adding nuclease to the cell culture, and c) lysing said host cells to provide a lysate comprising the virus.
Regarding claim 27, Weggeman 2005 teaches in addition to anion exchange columns, anion exchange membrane chromatography products such as those produced by Pall (e.g. Mustang™ series) and Sartorius (e.g. Sartobind series) are suitable (p. 26).
Regarding claim 32, Weggeman 2005, teaches any clarification approach including dead-end filtration, microfiltration, centrifugation, or body feed of filter aids (e.g. diatomaceous earth) in combination with dead-end or depth filtration, which provides a filtrate of suitable clarity to not foul the membrane and/or resins in the subsequent steps, will be acceptable to use in the clarification step of the present invention (p. 20).
Regarding claim 40, Weggeman 2005 teaches Diafiltration (DF) , or buffer exchange, using ultrafilters is an ideal way for removal and exchange of salts, sugars, non- aqueous solvents separation of free from bound species, removal of material of low molecular weight, or rapid change of ionic and/or pH environments…In one embodiment according to the invention, the lysate is concentrated by UF/DF 5-fold, and the resulting concentrated virus suspension is buffer exchanged with 6 diafiltration volumes (DFV) of a buffer comprising 1 M NaCl, using a constant volume diafiltration method (p. 23).
Regarding claim 43, Weggeman 2005 teaches In another aspect, the invention provides a batch of recombinant adenovirus comprising a transgene chosen from the group consisting of: an Ebolavirus nucleoprotein, an Ebolavirus glycoprotein, a Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite gene, and measles virus hemagglutinin, said batch characterized in that it contains less than 0.1 ng host cell DNA per 1E11 viral particles (p. 6).
Regarding claims 54 and 58, Weggeman 2005 teaches Examples of other useful mammalian cell lines that may be used directly as host cells for propagating viruses or converted into complementing host cells for replication deficient virus are Vero and HeLa cells and cell lines of Chinese hamster ovary, W138, BHK, COS-7, HepG2, 3T3, RIN and MDCK cells, as known to the person skilled in the art (p. 8).
Weggeman 2005 does not teach does not teach the host cell population density of at least 4x106 cells per ml, HEK cells, or specifically state replication deficient adenoviruses.
Regarding claims 1 – preamble, 56, and 59, Leo de Vocht, however, teaches claim 1(b) lysing with a detergent, cells within the host cell suspension having a cell density between 5x10⁶ and 150x10⁶ cells/mL (as recited in claim 1 preamble); propagation of E1-deficient rAd35, specific producer cells that express E1B-55K of Ad35 can be constructed, for instance based on existing producer cells that express E1A and E1B of Ad5 such as PER.C6 or HEK293 cells (as recited in claim 56); and the replication-deficient adenoviral vector can be generated by using any species, strain, subtype, or mixture of species, strains, or subtypes, of an adenovirus or a chimeric adenovirus as the source of vector DNA (as recited in claim 59).
Regarding 1(c), Neither Weggeman 2005 nor Leo de Vocht specifically teach “wherein the TFF product comprises host cell proteins at a concentration of 200 ng or less per 0.5 x1011 adenovirus particles and wherein the TFF product has an infectivity of greater than or equal to 2.4 x 106 ifu/mL.
Weggeman 2005, though does state, “Preferably however, further purification employs at least one chromatography step, as for instance discussed in WO 98/22588, p. 61-70. Many processes have been described for the further purification of viruses, wherein chromatography steps are included in the process. The person skilled in the art will be aware of these processes, and can vary the exact way of employing chromatographic steps to optimize the process of the invention”(p. 26) and “The use of anion exchange chromatography for adenovirus purification has been extensively described, and this aspect is therefore well within the reach of the person skilled in the art. Many different chromatography matrices have been employed for purification of adenovirus and are suitable, and the person skilled in the art can easily find the optimal anion exchange material for purifying the virus” (p. 26) and with respect to protein reduction,“Such free adenovirus proteins were not previously found in preparations of recombinant adenovirus particles and would normally go undetected, but now can be removed using the step of subjecting a recombinant adenovirus preparation comprising free adenovirus proteins to a charged filter that contains anion exchange groups. This effect of the use of the charged filter was not noted in WO 03/078592. In addition, WO 03/078592 does not disclose the employment of anion exchange filters for the purification of Ad35, or other adenovirus particles of subgroup B”(p. 29).
As noted in the specification, 0.5 x 1011 or alternatively, 5x1010 adenovirus particles is considered a dose (p. 25, “a dose of drug substance comprises about 5x1010 virus particles).
Although the process is slightly different in that there is a TFF step prior to anion exchange chromatography, Hagner-McWhirter demonstrates optimization of adenovirus purification downstream processes to achieve virus, HCP, and gDNA levels using similar chromatography products to the invention. As shown in Table 1, the HCP per virus particle (whether using Total or Infectious/ml) is less than 200ng per 0.5 x 1011 adenovirus particles for both the reference and experimental process (see poster).
Regarding claim 2, Hagner-McWhirter additionally teaches Capto Core 700. In the specification, the inventors clarify that the mixed mode size exclusion chromatography can be performed with mixed mode size exclusion resins including but not limited to Capto Core 700(Cytiva), Capto Core 400 (Cytiva) and Monomix Core 60 (Sepax Technologies).
Vicente teaches “there are critical implications on the downstream processing concerning purity, potency and quality of the final product. According to the desired final target: i) the process-derived impurities such as host cell protein (HCP) and host cell (HC) DNA contents must be below a certain limit – purity –; ii) the concentration (or titer) must be as high as achievable so that the volume of the required dose is the smallest feasible – potency –; iii) the quantity of product-derived impurities, damaged, non-functional virus particles should be as low as attainable compared to the functional virus particles — quality. The regulatory authorities – US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) – require the industry to define strict process and product guidelines that may differ depending upon the application. An infective virus, inactivated virus, VLP or viral vector to be used as a vaccine follows a set of guidelines established for vaccine products....A viral vector as a gene therapy product needs to meet the guidelines set for cell and gene therapy medicines…For example, for adenovirus as a gene therapy viral vector the authorities require a ratio of physical to infective virus titer below 30 (quality); however, the admissible levels of HCP and HC DNA (purity), although monitored consistently, are not requirements per se for lot release”(p. 870). Vicente also teaches “For the optimization of IEX processes, ionic strength and pH of the buffer/medium containing the complex mixture bulk are critical parameters that should be taken into special consideration early in the development design”(p. 875).
Hirai also teaches methods of how to optimize adenovirus purification processes in order to achieve specific “final impurity targets” including buffer selection, and running protein breakthrough experiments, in this case for total proteins and DNA (regarding optimization as taught above see MPEP 2144.05: II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION: A.Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Weggeman 2005, e.g. with respect to purifying adenoviruses with a clarifying step, followed by an anion exchange step, and further followed by a TFF (UF/DF) step, the teachings of Leo de Vocht, e.g. a suggested host cell suspension cell density, host cell population cells, a replication deficient adenovirus, the teachings of Hagner-McWhirter for a further step by mixed mode size exclusion chromatography, and the optimization teachings of Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai for the benefit of improving the adenovirus purification process in order to increase efficiency, yield and purity of product (See MPEP 2143 Rationale A. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and Rationale G. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success using known purification steps as taught by Weggeman 2005 using details such as a starting cell density, cell types, and a replication deficient adenovirus as taught by Leo de Vocht and the optimization strategies of Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente, and Hirai to devise the method of purifying adenovirus from an adenovirus-containing sample. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known within the adenovirus, adenovirus vector fields, gene therapy fields, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman 2005 in view of Leo de Vocht and Hagner-McWhirter, as evidenced by Vicente and Hirai, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 above, and further in view of Altaras et al. (Altaras) (previously cited).
See claim 4 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai teach the method of claims 1 and 2.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai do not teach wherein the host cell population has a cell density of at least 6x106 cells/mL, at least 8x106 cells/mL or at least 1x107 cells/mL.
Altaras, however, teaches Table 1 which summarizes different companies’ adenovirus cultivation examples. In the column for Canji, Altaras reports an infection cell density of 5 x 106 to 1 x 107 cells/mL)(p. 213)(as recited in claim 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to start with a host cell population of 1x107 as taught by Altaras, proceed with lysis, clarification and chromatography with the benefit of arriving at sufficient number of purified viral particles for use in different applications (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using the host cell populations concentrations as taught by Altaras. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known within the field of protein purification, vaccinology, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman 2005 in view of Leo de Vocht and Hagner-McWhirter, as evidenced by Vicente and Hirai, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 above, and further in view of Cherradi et al. (Cherradi) (previously cited).
Claims 19 and 21 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai teach the method of claim 1.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai do not teach wherein the depth filtration in step (a) comprises using a single type of depth filter (as recited in claim 19) nor wherein the depth filtration in step (a) comprises using at least two different depth filters in series (as recited in claim 21).
However, Cherradi teaches there are several types of depth filters available, including conventional, graded density, and newer synthetic products. For clarification, they have nominal pore sizing of 0.1–60 µm and are often multilayer. Depth filter devices are available in a wide range of sizes to accommodate process development scale (1–10 L) through commercial manufacturing scales (200 L to >2,000 L), and individual devices can be stacked together in a non-product contact holder to provide linear scalability. Depth filters are thus true “plug-and-play” solutions, as these single-use devices require no clean-in-place solution (p. 2, third paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use either a single type of depth filter from a variety of options or at least two different depth filters in series as taught by Cherradi to improve clarification of the adenovirus-containing sample. While best known for size exclusion, the depth filters are also beneficial for retaining larger contaminants and also physically adsorbing some contaminants, too (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with either a single type of depth filter or at least two different depth filters in series as taught by Cherradi. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman 2005 in view of Leo de Vocht and Hagner-McWhirter, as evidenced by Vicente and Hirai, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 above, and further in view of Keszey et al. (Keszey)(WO2020200980A1) (previously cited).
Claims 33 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai teach the method of claim 1.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai do not teach that the anion exchange product undergoes microfiltration.
However, Keszey teaches a microfiltration step post anion exchange for purifying immunoglobulins in order to remove a microbial contaminant. Keszey also teaches the microfiltration step prior to a tangential flow filtration (TFF) comprising ultrafiltration and diafiltration (See Figure 3) which is consistent with the steps claim 1(b), followed by 1(c) in the instant application.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an extra microfiltration step as taught by Keszey post anion exchange chromatography in order to advantageously reduce the microbial load of and improve the purity of an adenovirus product (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with adding a microfiltration step with the intent of reducing microbial contaminants as taught by Keszey. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known in the context of the adenovirus and adenovirus vector, immunoglobulin, and in general protein purification fields, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman 2005 in view of Leo de Vocht and Hagner-McWhirter, as evidenced by Vicente and Hirai, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 above, and further in view of Adriaansen et al. (Adriaansen)(WO2015040234A1) (previously cited).
Claims 45 and 46 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai teach claim 1.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai do not teach wherein the method further comprises formulating the TFF product to provide a formulated product nor wherein the method further comprises subjecting the TFF product or formulated product to sterile filtration to provide a drug substance.
However, Adriaansen teaches adenovirus formulations and related pharmaceutical products for use in e.g. gene therapy and/or vaccine applications. In particular, liquid formulations for adenoviruses are disclosed herein, which improve the adenoviral stability by preserving quantity, potency (infectivity) and quality of the contained adenovirus when stored in about the 2-8°C range or higher while also being compatible with parenteral administration [Field of Invention](as recited in claim 45).
In Example 1, Per formulation, 12 columns were used; eluates were pooled, sterile filtrated and stored at 2-8 °C in a glass bottle. Samples were taken for viral titer determination by vp- QPCR and all titers were adjusted with the appropriate buffer to 1.7xlOn vp/mL (as recited in claim 46).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use adenovirus formulations and sterile filtration as taught by Adriaansen to advantageously stabilize the composition and further remove impurities to improve its safety for administration to subjects (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with the adenovirus formulations and sterile filtration as taught by Adriaansen. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known in the context of the adenovirus and adenovirus vector fields and vaccinology, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 60, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weggeman 2005 in view of Leo de Vocht and Hagner-McWhirter, as evidenced by Vicente and Hirai, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 27, 32, 40, 43, 54, 56, 58, 59 above, and further in view of Morris et al. (Morris) (previously cited).
Claims 60 and 63 as submitted 08/07/2026.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai teach claim 1.
Weggeman 2005, Leo de Vocht, Hagner-McWhirter, Vicente and Hirai do not teach wherein the adenovirus is a simian adenovirus (as recited in claim 60) nor wherein the adenovirus is not a human adenovirus (as recited in claim 63).
However, Morris teaches adenovirus vaccine development has focused on simian-derived adenoviral vectors, which have the desirable vector characteristics of HAdV-C5 but with negligible seroprevalence in the human population (Abstract, p. 649). Key considerations in the design of SAd vectors for use as vaccines are similar to those for HAdV-C5. Leading nonhuman adenovirus candidates include vectors derived from simian adenoviruses (SAds) and in particular those derived from chimpanzee adenoviruses (termed ChAds or AdCs). The vaccine vector must be nonreplicating and unlike adenovirus gene therapy vectors have negligible immune modulatory activity (p. 649).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use simian adenoviruses as taught by Morris to advantageously overcome the human adenovirus seroprevalence seen in human populations (See MPEP 2143, Rationale A: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with simian adenoviruses as taught by Morris. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are known in the context of the adenovirus and adenovirus vector fields, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art.
Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Claire Cornelius whose telephone number is (571) 272-0860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0930-1700.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at (571) 270-0684. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights