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 .
Priority
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT application PCT/CA2022/051664, filed 05/10/2024 under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgement is made of the applicant’s claim for benefit to prior-filed U.S. provisional patent application 63/278,751, which was filed 11/12/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, drawn to a method of deriving naïve bovine embryonic stem cells, in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-13 have been considered on the merits. Claims 30-33 and 42-44 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites abbreviation “EHS”, claim 5 recites abbreviation “LIF”, abbreviations which are not well-known in the art such as “EHS” and “LIF” should be spelled out at the first encounter in the claims;
In claim 5, the semicolon “;” after the phrase “a Activin A component” is missing.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “adjacent to” renders instant claims indefinite. The term “adjacent to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a definition or clarification, therefore the term “adjacent to” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning as next to, nearby or very close to something. It is not clear whether the adjacent layers are physically contacted to each other or not. Moreover, both of the “negatively charged substrate surface” and “negatively charged ECM layer” are adjacent to the “positively charged biocompatible polymer layer”, it is not clear whether the “negatively charged substrate surface” and “negatively charged ECM layer” are on different sides of the “positively charged biocompatible polymer layer” (i.e., from bottom to top: negatively charged substrate surface - positively charged biocompatible polymer layer - negatively charged ECM layer) or the “negatively charged substrate surface” and “negatively charged ECM layer” are parallelly on the same side of the “positively charged biocompatible polymer layer”. Thus the scope of the claim is not clear.
Claims 2-13 depend from, at least, claim 1, and thus inherit the deficiency and are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 9 uses multiple parentheticals adjacent to terms renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear whether the items within the parentheticals are required or optional.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is indefinite. In the interest of compacted prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted that the ECM-coated substrate comprises three layers from bottom to top: negatively charged substrate surface - positively charged biocompatible polymer layer - negatively charged ECM layer.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. (Sci Rep. 2021 May 26;11(1):11045, cited in IDS) in view of Nie et al. (Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. Vol. 70 (2019) 4, 531 - 542), as evidenced by Kleinman et al. (Semin Cancer Biol. 2005 Oct;15(5):378-86).
Soto et al. teach simplified bovine embryonic stem cells (bESC) culture conditions based on replacing custom base medium with a commercially available alternative and eliminating the need for MEF feeders by using a chemically defined substrate (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Soto et al. teach embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of preimplantation embryos and capture indefinitely the developmental potency of the transient pluripotent epiblast (p1, parag 1). Soto et al. teach a method of derivation of stable bESCs, the successful establishment of bovine embryonic stem cells (bESC) lines in a commercially available culture medium base and their stable expansion under a feeder-free condition (p2, parag 2). Soto et al. teach derivation and culture of NBFR‑bESCs (with a culture medium based on commercially available N2B27 medium supplemented with 1% BSA, 20 ng/mL FGF2 and 2.5 µM IWR-1): bovine embryos (Bos taurus) were produced by in vitro fertilization of in vitro matured slaughterhouse-derived oocytes. In vitro cultured blastocyst stage embryos were collected seven days post fertilization. Unhatched blastocysts were treated with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min to remove the zona pellucida and then thoroughly washed in SOF-HEPES to remove traces of the enzyme (p10, parag 6). NBFR‑bESCs express the epigenetic profile of genes that are commonly related to naïve and primed states such as POU5F1, SOX2, NANOG and SALL4 genes. This teaching reads on a method of deriving naïve bovine embryonic stem cells comprising step “a) providing a Zona Pellucida (ZP)-free bovine embryo comprising naive bovine embryonic stem cells” and “c) culturing the ZP-free bovine embryo in the presence of outgrowth medium and outgrowth of an inner cell mass (ICM) comprising derived naive bovine embryonic stem cells”, as recited in instant claims. Soto et al. teach NBFR-bESC lines were grown at 37 °C and 5% CO2 on MEF feeders or adapted to vitronectin or matrigel substrates under a feeder-free condition (see p10, parag 4).
Soto et al. do not teach using an extracellular matrix (ECM)-coated substrate for the culturing of the ZP-free bovine, wherein the ECM-coated substrate comprises a substrate comprising a negatively charged substrate surface adjacent to a positively charged biocompatible polymer layer, and a negatively charged ECM layer adjacent to the positively charged biocompatible polymer layer, as recited in step b), as well as the attachment of the ZP-free bovine embryo to the ECM-coated substrate in step c). However, this was disclosed by Nie et al. at the time of instant invention.
Nie et al. hypothesized that a multilayer formation based on the attraction of molecules with opposite charges could functionalize the polystyrene (PS) substrates to improve the adhesion of hiPSCs.
Polymeric substrates were stepwise coated, first with dopamine to form a polydopamine (PDA) layer, second with polylysine and last with Laminin-521 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Nie et al. teach for culturing human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs), LN521 has been identified as a specific one that allows survival and self-renewal of hiPSCs (Introduction, parag 3). In addition, modification of the cell culture surface with polydopamine (PDA) could not only increase the cell adhesion but also covalently and/or physically immobilize functional bio-signaling molecules (Introduction, parag 4). However, the immobilization of LN521 on the cell culture surface via
PDA might be compromised by electrostatic repulsion, since both LN521 and PDA are negatively charged at physiological pH. The use of a positively charged substance, for example polylysine (pLys), as an intermediate layer might be able to address this problem (Introduction, parag 4). This teaching reads on an ECM-coated substrate comprises a substrate comprising a negatively charged substrate surface adjacent to a positively charged biocompatible polymer layer, and a negatively charged ECM layer adjacent to the positively charged biocompatible polymer layer, as recited in step b). Nie et al. also teach this multilayer formation improved the attachment of stem cells (hiPSCs) (see Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs by feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or matrigel (see p10, parag 4), and use a multilayer coating based on the attraction of molecules with opposite charges for the culture as taught by Nie et al.. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a multilayer coating based on the attraction of molecules with opposite charges for culturing the stem cells since Nie et al. teach the multilayer coating approach renders the surface with diverse chemical compositions, architectures, and functions can be used to improve the adhesion of hiPSCs on the bioengineered substrates (Abstract). Moreover, Nie et al. also provide thoughts that when two coating substance as needed are in the same electrical charge (i.e., both negatively charged), an intermediate layer (i.e., positively charged) might be able to address this problem (see last paragraph in Introduction). There would be a reasonable expectation of success of using multilayer coating based on the attraction of molecules with opposite charges since Nie et al. teach the method and results (see Methods and Results part).
Regarding claim 3, Soto et al. teach using feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or Matrigel (see p10, parag 4) for culturing ESCs. Matrigel is also called EHS matrix as evidenced by Kleinman et al.(see Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, following the discussion above, Nie et al. teach the polystyrene surface coating (Section 2.1, Method part).
Regarding claim 5, Soto et al. teach an optimized new culture condition for expansion of bovine embryonic stem cells (bESC) based on commercially available N2B27 medium supplemented with 1% BSA, 20 ng/mL FGF2 and 2.5 µM IWR-1, which termed NBFR (p2, parag 3), reads on the outgrowth medium comprises N2B27 component.
Regarding claim 7, Soto et al. teach bESCs cultures required 20 ng/mL supplementation of Activin A in absence of MEF feeders (p10, parag 5).
Regarding claim 8, following the discussion above, Soto et al. teach N2B27 medium consisted of a mixture of 1:1 DMEM/F12 medium and Neurobasal medium, 0.5% v/v N-2 Supplement and 1% v/v B-27 Supplement (p10, parag 4).
Regarding claims 9-10, Soto et al. teach In vitro cultured blastocyst stage embryos were collected seven days post fertilization. Unhatched blastocysts were treated with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min to remove the zona pellucida and then thoroughly washed in SOF-HEPES to remove traces of the enzyme (p10, parag 4). This teaching reads on the ZP-free bovine embryo is a 7-day embryo, as recited in instant claim 9, and the ZP-free bovine embryo is obtained by enzyme-assisted ZP removal using 2 mg/mL of Pronase, as recited in instant claim 10.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. (Sci Rep. 2021 May 26;11(1):11045, cited in IDS) in view of Nie et al. (Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. Vol. 70 (2019) 4, 531-542), as evidenced by Kleinman et al. (Semin Cancer Biol. 2005 Oct;15(5):378-86), applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 above, further in view of Greenlee et al. (Toxicol In Vitro. 2005 Apr;19(3):389-97, cited in IDS), as evidenced by Buie et al. (Trends Biotechnol. 2020 May;38(5):546-557) and Sakata et al. (Genes to Cells (2017) 22, 203–209).
The teaching of Soto et al. and Nie et al. is set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Soto et al. teach using feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or Matrigel (see p10, parag 4) for culturing ESCs. Matrigel is also called Cultrex or EHS matrix as evidenced by Kleinman et al. (see Abstract). Soto et al. and Nie et al. do not teach the positively charged biocompatible polymer layer comprises type A gelatin. However, this was disclosed by Greenlee et al. at the time of instant invention.
Greenlee et al. compare the synthetic basement membrane Matrigel with 0.1% gelatin substratum for feeder-free propagation of undifferentiated mES cells (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Greenlee et al. teach using 0.1% type A gelatin (see p390, right column) and Matrigel for feeder-free propagation of undifferentiated mES cells (Abstract). The type A gelatin is a positively charged biocompatible polymer, as evidenced by Buie et al. (see 547, parag 2 and Box 1). Sakata et al. provide evidence that Matrigel is a negatively charged ECM (see p205, left column).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs by feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or matrigel (see p10, parag 4), follow the principle of using a multilayer coating based on the attraction of molecules with opposite charges as taught by Nie et al., and use two different substances (Matrigel and type A gelatin) which both have been demonstrated to yield positive effects for culturing ESCs as taught by Greenlee et al.. The only difference between instant claim and Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs using Matrigel is instant claim use both type A gelatin and EHS-ECM (Matrigel) by multilayer coating. Given that Greenlee et al. teach both type A gelatin and Matrigel have effect on the culture of embryonic stem cells (Abstract), and Nie et al. teach the multilayer coating approach renders the surface with diverse chemical compositions, architectures, and functions can be used to improve the adhesion of stem cells (i.e., hiPSCs) on the bioengineered substrates (see Abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs by feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or Matrigel, and use negatively charged Matrigel, positively charged type A gelatin together to attach to negatively charged dish surface, depends on their research interest. This simple substitution of one known element (use negatively charged Matrigel, positively charged type A gelatin together to attach to negatively charged dish surface) for another known element (Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs by feeder-free culture in a dish with vitronectin or Matrigel) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. (Sci Rep. 2021 May 26;11(1):11045, cited in IDS) in view of Nie et al. (Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. Vol. 70 (2019) 4, 531-542), as evidenced by Kleinman et al. (Semin Cancer Biol. 2005 Oct;15(5):378-86), applied to 1, 3-5 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Baharvand et al. (US 2015/0037883 A1, cited in IDS) and Ren et al. (Stem Cell Reports. 2020 Dec 8;15(6):1362-1376).
The teaching of Soto et al. and Nie et al. is set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Soto et al. teach using N2B27 medium (p2, parag 3, Results), which consisted of a mixture of 1:1 DMEM/F12 medium and Neurobasal medium, 0.5% v/v N-2 Supplement, 1% v/v B-27 Supplement, 2 mM MEM Non-Essential Amino Acid Solution, 1% v/v GlutaMAX supplement, 0.1 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 100 U/mL Penicillin, and 100 μg/mL Streptomycin (p10, parag 4, Materials and methods). N2B27 were initially supplemented with 20 ng/mL human FGF2 and 2.5 μM IWR-1 (p10, parag 4). Soto et al. teach in absence of MEF feeders, 3 μM CHIR99021, a glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) inhibitor triggers activation of canonical Wnt signaling (p9, bottom line-p10, top line). Soto et al. teach whole zona-free blastocysts or isolated ICMs are cultured in NBFR medium [N2B27 medium, 1% low fatty acid BSA, 20 ng/mL human FGF2, 2.5 μM IWR-1] supplemented with 10 μM Rho Kinase inhibitor Y-27632 and Antibiotic/Antimycotic Solution. Soto et al. do not teach other components including the MEK/ERK inhibitor component, the LIF component comprises human LIF, the PKC inhibitor and the insulin component in the culture medium. However, this was disclosed by Baharvand et al., Rajendran et al. and Ren et al. at the time of instant invention.
Baharvand et al. teach a method for derivation and long term establishment of ground state pluripotent embryonic stem cells (Abstract).
Rajendran et al. teach inhibition of PKC signaling is an efficient strategy to establish and maintain pluripotent rESCs and to facilitate reprogramming of rat embryonic fibroblasts to rat induced pluripotent stem cells (Abstract).
Ren et al. teach insulin is essential to sustain hESC mitochondrial respiration that is rapidly decreased upon insulin removal (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Baharvand et al. teach mouse embryonic stem cells from 3.5 day blastocyst are derived in a media comprising R2i molecule. The zona-free E.3.5 day blastocyst is plated on a gelatine coated plate comprising a predefined medium with the R2i and a leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), and the predefined medium is selected from a group consisting of KSOM medium, N2B27 medium and serum (parag 0027). The 2i molecular combination comprises a PD0325901 and a CHIR99021 molecule (parag 0029). Rajendran et al. teach inhibition of PKC signaling by a selective PKC inhibitor, 3-[1-[3-(dimethylamino)-propyl]-5-methoxy-1H-indol-3-yl]-4-(1H-indol-3-yl)-1H-pyrrole-2, 5-dione(Gö6983, henceforth mentioned as PKCi) is sufficient to maintain, derive, and propagate pluripotent mESCs (p24351, right column). Moreover, Ren et al. teach insulin is continuously required to maintain mitochondrial respiration in hESCs while modulations of the insulin pathway lead to rapid energetic responses (p1633, left column).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto et al.’s method of derivation of stable bESCs using NBFR culture conditions, and add more components including MEK/ERK inhibitor component PD0325901 and LIF as taught by Baharvand et al., the PKC inhibitor Gö6983 as taught by Rajendran et al., as well as insulin as taught by Ren et al.. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to add these components since these components are reported for deriving and long term establishment of ground
state pluripotent embryonic stem cells (Baharvand et al., parag 0026), maintain, derive, and propagate pluripotent mESCs (Rajendran et al., p24351, right column), and maintain mitochondrial respiration in hESCs (Ren et al., p1633, left column), which are beneficial for the growing and functionality of the cultured ESCs. There would be a reasonable expectation of success of adding these components, since Baharvand et al., Rajendran et al. and Ren et al. teach the concentration of these components (see i.e., Baharvand et al., parag 0031; Rajendran et al., p24352, left column; and Ren et al., Figure 1).
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. (Sci Rep. 2021 May 26;11(1):11045, cited in IDS) in view of Nie et al. (Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. Vol. 70 (2019) 4, 531-542), as evidenced by Kleinman et al. (Semin Cancer Biol. 2005 Oct;15(5):378-86), applied to 1, 3-5 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Menio et al. (Biol Reprod. 1983 Mar;28(2):433-46) and Mousavi et al. (Vet Med Sci. 2022 Jan;8(1):405-410., Epub 2021 Sep 16).
The teaching of Soto et al. and Nie et al. is set forth above.
Regarding claims 11-13, Soto et al. teach removing zona pellucida by 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min and then thoroughly washed in SOF-HEPES to remove traces of the enzyme (p10, parag 4). This teaching reads on steps a), b), step of incubating the embryo in the protease solution in c), as well as inactivate the protease in d). However, Soto et al. do not teach partially digest the ZP and obtain a ZP-thinned embryo, as well as e) rupturing the ZP and f) manipulating the embryo to separate the ZP from the embryo, which is a combination of enzyme and mechanical method of removing the ZP, as well as the concentration of protease in step c) is 0.1%-0.5%, and the embryo and protease solution are incubated for between about 30-60 seconds in step c). However, this was disclosed by Menio et al. and Mousavi et al. at the time of instant invention.
Menio et al. investigated the in vitro development of porcine blastomeres and the effects of pronase treatment, microdissection, and zona pellucida removal used in the isolation procedure (Abstracy).
Mousavi et al. teach the effects of treating the zona pellucida of ovine embryos with pronase enzyme or ATS before morula formation on the viability and developmental competence of treated embryos and on the freezability and post-warming hatchability of resulted blastocysts (p406, left column).
Regarding claims 11-13, Menio et al. teach embryos were transferred to solutions of either 2.5 or 5.0% pronase (Protease) in Whitten’s medium (WM) to effect dissolution of the zona pellucida. Embryos were incubated in the pronase solution for 3.0 min, then transferred to microdrops of WM + BSA in siliconized glass petri dishes under paraffin oil. If after the 3.0 min pronase treatment the zona pellucida was not dissolved, the embryo was microdissected out of the zona pellucida with handheld finely drawn siliconized glass pipettes (p434, left column). Mousavi et al. teach to treat with pronase, by adding HTCM culture medium containing 10% serum to a pre-prepared aliquot, a 0.25% (w/v) working solution of the enzyme was prepared. Then, in the centre of a petri dish, several droplets of 10 μl of the enzyme and around them 20 droplets of 20 μl of HTCM medium containing 20% serum were placed as washing droplets and covered with oil. Two to three embryos were transferred to one of the enzyme droplets for 30 or 45s. Then, the embryos were transferred to a rinsing droplet. In the first few droplets, the embryos were immediately transferred to the next droplet to stop the enzyme activity (p407, left column).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto et al.’s method of obtain the ZP-free bovine embryo by treating the unhatched blastocysts with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min, and use the combination of enzyme treatment and mechanical rupture as taught by Menio et al. and use 0.25% pronase for 30 or 45s as taught by Mousavi et al.. The only difference between instant claim and Soto et al.’s method of obtain the ZP-free bovine embryo by treating the unhatched blastocysts with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min is instant claim use 0.25% protease for 30 or 45s to partially digest the ZP and then rupturing the ZP. Since Mousavi et al. teach treating ovine 3-day-old embryos with pronase for 30 s had the least negative effect on the developmental capacity of treated embryos (p408, left column), one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted Soto et al.’s method of obtain the ZP-free bovine embryo by treating the unhatched blastocysts with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min, and use 0.25% protease for 30 or 45s to partially digest the ZP and the rupturing the ZP for the purpose that reduce the negative effect produced by the long time protease treatment. This simple substitution of one known element (use 0.25% protease for 30 or 45s to partially digest the ZP and the rupturing the ZP) for another known element (Soto et al.’s method of obtain the ZP-free bovine embryo by treating the unhatched blastocysts with 2 mg/mL of Pronase for 2–3 min) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QINHUA GU whose telephone number is (703)756-1176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Christopher Babic can be reached at (571)272-8507. 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.
/Q.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1633
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights