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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 7/23/2026, no have been cancelled, no claims have been newly added, thus Claims 1-10 and 35-45 are pending.
Amendments to claims 8, 10, 41 and 43 to address USC 112(b) issues have been acknowledged and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 5 under USC 102(a)(1) and claim 6 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference as will be described below.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 regarding claims 1-4, 7-10, 35-45 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Applicant argues regarding claims 1-4 that “As disclosed in the specification (paragraph [0031]-[0034]), this magnetic pairing serves as a "magnetic snare"… Saab does not teach or suggest using the magnetic pairing across a stenotic occlusion as a "snare" to align lumens across a spaced- apart blockage”. Furthermore, regarding claim 35, Applicant argues that “the Examiner maps "one of said magnets is an electromagnet" to Saab's paragraph 58, which discusses magnets generally. However, combining a permanent magnet with an electromagnet in the catheter tip-as recited in claim 35-provides the ability to increase field strength of the permanent magnet and to pulse the electromagnet's field strength. As described in the specification (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]), this pulsing capability enables reduced cutting forces during tissue recanalization, a result not disclosed or suggested by Saab”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Saab does disclose wherein one of said magnets (58, 258) is an electromagnet (paragraph 58, “Additionally or alternatively, the first magnetic element 58 and/or the second magnetic element 258 can form an electromagnet. The electromagnet can be controllably activated by an operator when desired by providing an electrical current to the electromagnet. The magnitude of the magnetic attraction can be controlled by operation of the electromagnet.”).
Regarding claims 7-10 and 40-43, Applicant argues that “St. Germain's steel tube, by contrast, is described simply as an enclosure for structural purposes, with no teaching of field-shunting or gap-traversal improvement…This allows the MagSnare to magnetically couple catheter lumens across significantly greater distances than is achievable with rigid magnets-a benefit not disclosed, suggested, or rendered obvious by St. Germain's articulated guidewire coupling. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 7-10 and 40-43 should be withdrawn.”, however, Examiner respectfully disagrees. St. Germain teaches in col. 4 line 21-34, “Alternative articulated magnetic coupling 20b further includes a series of magnetically responsive outer portions 25b which are rigidly connected to outer tube 24b which in turn is rigidly connected to extension wire 12. Inner magnets 22b are coaxially aligned with magnetically responsive outer portions 25b and are sidable therein. The arrangement of each magnetically responsive outer portion 25b relative to each inner magnet 22b is such that the interaction between them produces an optimal attractive force. Providing a series of inner magnets 22b and magnetically responsive outer portions 25b increases the magnitude of magnetic field edge effects which contribute a substantial amount of the longitudinal force to resist relative longitudinal displacement.”. The steel tube (24b) assists in aligning the magnets (25b) of the extension wire (12) with the magnets (22b) of the guidewire (11) and increases the magnitude of the magnetic field edge effects to provide an optimal attractive force. Furthermore, St. Germain teaches that the magnets are segmented and bendable (the guidewire (11) is connected to extension wire (12) by an articulated magnetic coupling (20a, 20b, Fig. 2a-b, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), the magnetic coupling including a first magnet portion (22a, 22b, Fig. 2a-b) and a second magnetic portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 2a-b), the magnetic portions may be articulated (abstract, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), and the articulated magnetic coupling comprising a plurality of segments (Fig. 2a-b, first magnetic portions (22a, 22b) and second magnetic portions (25a, 25b) are made of a series of magnetic segments (col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17)). The articulation and segmentation of the magnetic coupling allows it to smoothly traverse tortuous vasculature within a patient body while minimizing damage to the tissue.
Regarding claims 36-39 and 44-45, Applicant argues that “The combination of Saab's dual-catheter magnetic pairing with each of these secondary references is not suggested by the prior art as a whole, and the Examiner has not established a sufficient motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed combinations address specific unmet clinical needs in endovascular recanalization and catheter coupling that the cited art, individually or in combination, fails to render obvious.”, however, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, for claims 36-37, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Saab with the teachings of Shuman to have wherein one of said ends includes a heater in order to provide heat based therapy to tissue as disclosed by Shuman (paragraph 26-28). Shuman further teaches wherein said heater (130) is extendable and retractable (paragraph 28, the movement of the friction producing plug 130 may be axial along the longitudinal axis of the catheter body 110 as seen in Fig. 1a-b). For claims 38-39, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Saab with the teachings of Bonner to provide a stronger mechanical connection to supplement the magnetic connection between the two catheter instruments as the loop (164) supplements the magnetic connection between the magnet (58) of the catheter (48) and a magnet (42, Fig. 7) of leadless pacemaker (32, Fig. 7) (paragraph 50). Bonner further teaches wherein said loops (164) enclose said magnet (42) of said second instrument (32) when said instruments are paired (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 50-53). For claims 44-45, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Saab with the teachings of Fitzgerald to have wherein one of said distal ends has a cutting end and another of said distal ends has an opening configured to receive said cutting end in order to cut through tissue to establish communication between the two catheters as disclosed by Fitzgerald (paragraph 41, 44). Fitzgerald further teaches wherein receiving end defines a chamber (paragraph 48, the lumen of the secondary catheter is used as a receptacle or receiving space for a cutting member) and said chamber is capped by said cutting end when said instruments are magnetically paired (paragraph 42, 46-48).
Thus, for the above reasons, the rejections for claims 1-4, 7-10 and 35-45 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180333162 A1 Saab.
Regarding claim 1, Saab discloses a catheter system comprising: first (40, Fig. 18-22) and second catheters (240, Fig. 18-22), each catheter having a distal end including a magnet (first catheter (40) having a distal end (90, Fig. 18-22) including a magnet (58, Fig. 22, paragraph 58), second catheter (240) having a distal end (290, Fig. 18-22) including a magnet (258, Fig. 22, paragraph 58)), said magnet (58) of said first catheter (40) is the polar opposite of said magnet (258) used with said second catheter (240) (seen in Fig. 22, paragraph 59-60), each catheter having a lumen (first catheter (40) having a lumen (80, Fig. 18-22), second catheter (240) having a lumen (280, Fig. 18-22)), and said lumens are substantially aligned when said catheters are magnetically paired (Fig. 22, paragraph 52-62).
Regarding claim 2, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said distal ends (90, 290) are circular (Fig. 18-24).
Regarding claim 3, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said distal ends (90, 290) are mirror-images (Fig. 18-22).
Regarding claim 4, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said lumens (80, 280) are centrally located (Fig. 18-24).
Regarding claim 35, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one of said magnets (58, 258) is an electromagnet (paragraph 58, “Additionally or alternatively, the first magnetic element 58 and/or the second magnetic element 258 can form an electromagnet. The electromagnet can be controllably activated by an operator when desired by providing an electrical current to the electromagnet. The magnitude of the magnetic attraction can be controlled by operation of the electromagnet.”).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab in view of US 5851185 Berns.
Regarding claim 5, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 4.
Saab is silent on wherein one of said distal ends is tapered and another of said distal ends has an opening configured to receive said tapered end and to lock said tapered end in place when said catheters are joined together.
However, Berns teaches an apparatus for aligning a damaged tubular organ (abstract, col. 1 line 5-7) that comprises a first catheter (100, Fig. 7-9) having a distal end (114) including a magnet (120), wherein the distal end (114) is tapered (tapered portion 123), and a second catheter (100A, Fig. 10-12) having a distal end (114A) including a magnet (120A), wherein the distal end (114A) has an opening (123A) configured to receive the tapered end (123) of the first catheter (100) (col. 6 line 24-26) and to lock said tapered end in place when said catheters are joined together (col. 6 line 50-53, the distal ends of the catheters (100, 100A) have magnets (120, 120A) and once magnetically attracted to each other they would be magnetically locked to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of Berns in order to facilitate a surgeon’s alignment of the catheters so that their axis of passage will be substantially continuous and unobstructed which is desirable for the insertion of a guidewire or other device as disclosed by Berns (col. 6 line 24-34).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Saab and Berns teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Berns teaches wherein said tapered end (123) is frustoconical in shape (as seen in Fig. 7, 9) and said opening (123A) is configured to match said frustoconical shape (Fig. 12, col. 6 line 24-26).
Claims 7-10, 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab in view of US 5813996 A St. Germain et al (hereinafter St. Germain).
Regarding claim 7, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein at least one of said magnets are enclosed in a steel tubing.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (22b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (25b) that are enclosed in a steel tube (24b, col. 4 line 16-38, col. 5 line 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein at least one of said magnets are enclosed in a steel tubing in order to maintain durability and alignment of the magnets and increase the magnitude of the magnetic field edge effects to provide an optimal attractive force as disclosed by St. Germain (col. 4 line 21-34).
Regarding claim 8, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein said steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (22b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (25b) that are enclosed in a steel tube (24b, col. 4 line 16-38, col. 5 line 3-6), wherein the steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet (as seen in Fig. 2b, the distal end of magnet (25b) is not covered by the steel tubing (24b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein said steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet in order to provide a clear access way to the catheter and a complete and secure abutment of the magnetic elements of the catheter instruments.
Regarding claim 9, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein at least one of said magnets is bendable.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2a-b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2a-b) wherein the guidewire (11) is connected to extension wire (12) by an articulated magnetic coupling (20a, 20b, Fig. 2a-b, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), the magnetic coupling including a first magnet portion (22a, 22b, Fig. 2a-b) and a second magnetic portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 2a-b) and the magnetic portions may be articulated (abstract, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein at least one of said magnets is bendable in order to allow the distal end portion of the catheters to have more flexibility to travel through a patient’s vasculature without damaging the tissue.
Regarding claim 10, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein said bendable magnet is comprised of a plurality of segments.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2a-b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2a-b) wherein the guidewire (11) is connected to extension wire (12) by an articulated magnetic coupling (20a, 20b, Fig. 2a-b, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), the magnetic coupling including a first magnet portion (22a, 22b, Fig. 2a-b) and a second magnetic portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 2a-b), the magnetic portions may be articulated (abstract, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), and the articulated magnetic coupling comprising a plurality of segments (Fig. 2a-b, first magnetic portions (22a, 22b) and second magnetic portions (25a, 25b) are made of a series of magnetic segments (col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein said bendable magnet is comprised of a plurality of segments in order to provide a stronger and more evenly distributed magnetic attractive force for the catheter instruments.
Regarding claim 40, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein at least one of said magnets are enclosed in a steel tubing.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (22b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (25b) that are enclosed in a steel tube (24b, col. 4 line 16-38, col. 5 line 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein at least one of said magnets are enclosed in a steel tubing in order to maintain durability and alignment of the magnets and increase the magnitude of the magnetic field edge effects to provide an optimal attractive force as disclosed by St. Germain (col. 4 line 21-34).
Regarding claim 41, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein said steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (22b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2b) having a distal end comprising magnets (25b) that are enclosed in a steel tube (24b, col. 4 line 16-38, col. 5 line 3-6), wherein the steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet (as seen in Fig. 2b, the distal end of magnet (25b) is not covered by the steel tubing (24b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein said steel tubing does not cover the distal end of said magnet in order to provide a clear access way to the catheter and a complete and secure abutment of the catheter instruments.
Regarding claim 42, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein at least one of said magnets is bendable.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2a-b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2a-b) wherein the guidewire (11) is connected to extension wire (12) by an articulated magnetic coupling (20a, 20b, Fig. 2a-b, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), the magnetic coupling including a first magnet portion (22a, 22b, Fig. 2a-b) and a second magnetic portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 2a-b) and the magnetic portions may be articulated (abstract, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein at least one of said magnets is bendable in order to allow the distal end portion of the catheters to have more flexibility to travel through a patient’s vasculature without damaging the tissue.
Regarding claim 43, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein said bendable magnet is comprised of a plurality of segments.
However, St. Germain teaches an intravascular guide wire system (abstract, col. 1 line 4-11) that comprises a guidewire (11, Fig. 2a-b) and an extension wire (12, Fig. 2a-b) wherein the guidewire (11) is connected to extension wire (12) by an articulated magnetic coupling (20a, 20b, Fig. 2a-b, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), the magnetic coupling including a first magnet portion (22a, 22b, Fig. 2a-b) and a second magnetic portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 2a-b), the magnetic portions may be articulated (abstract, col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17), and the articulated magnetic coupling comprising a plurality of segments (Fig. 2a-b, first magnetic portions (22a, 22b) and second magnetic portions (25a, 25b) are made of a series of magnetic segments (col. 3 line 27-48, col. 4 line 16-38, claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of St. Germain to have wherein said bendable magnet is comprised of a plurality of segments in order to provide a stronger and more evenly distributed magnetic attractive force for the catheter instruments.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab in view of US 20140276715 A1 Shuman et al. (hereinafter Shuman).
Regarding claim 36, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein one of said ends includes a heater.
However, Shuman teaches a heated catheter system (abstract, paragraph 2, 6-9) that comprises a catheter with a heated catheter distal end (100, Fig. 1a) including a heater (130, Fig. 1a-b, paragraph 27-28, the movement of friction producing plug 130 against the inner wall of the thermally conductive catheter tip 170 generates heat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of Shuman to have wherein one of said ends includes a heater in order to provide heat based therapy to tissue as disclosed by Shuman (paragraph 26-28).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Saab and Shuman teaches the limitations of claim 36 and Shuman further discloses wherein said heater (130) is extendable and retractable (paragraph 28, the movement of the friction producing plug 130 may be axial along the longitudinal axis of the catheter body 110 as seen in Fig. 1a-b).
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab in view of US 20120109148 A1 Bonner et al. (hereinafter Bonner).
Regarding claim 38, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein said distal end of said first instrument includes one or more loops defining an opening and said distal end.
However, Bonner teaches a system for removing implantable medical devices from a patient (abstract, paragraph 1, 5) that comprises an implantable medical device implantation and extraction system (146, Fig. 6-7) incorporating a catheter (48), a magnet (58) and a loop (164) having an opening at the distal end (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 50). The loop (164) supplements the magnetic connection between the magnet (58) of the catheter (48) and a magnet (42, Fig. 7) of leadless pacemaker (32, Fig. 7) (paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of Bonner to provide a stronger mechanical connection to supplement the magnetic connection between the two catheter instruments.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Saab and Bonner teaches the limitations of claim 38, and Bonner further discloses wherein said loops (164) enclose said magnet (42) of said second instrument (32) when said instruments are paired (Fig. 6-7, paragraph 50-53).
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saab in view of US 20090036872 A1 Fitzgerald et al. (hereinafter Fitzgerald).
Regarding claim 44, Saab discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Saab is silent on wherein one of said distal ends has a cutting end and another of said distal ends has an opening configured to receive said cutting end.
However, Fitzgerald teaches a catheter system (2, Fig. 1, abstract, paragraph 8) comprising two catheters (4, 5) having magnetized distal ends (4a, 6a, paragraph 27) wherein one of said distal ends has a cutting end (Fig. 6a-b, paragraph 42, 47-48) and another of said distal ends has an opening configured to receive said cutting end (paragraph 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saab with the teachings of Fitzgerald to have wherein one of said distal ends has a cutting end and another of said distal ends has an opening configured to receive said cutting end in order to cut through tissue to establish communication between the two catheters as disclosed by Fitzgerald (paragraph 41, 44).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Saab and Fitzgerald teaches the limitations of claim 44 and Fitzgerald further discloses wherein receiving end defines a chamber (paragraph 48, the lumen of the secondary catheter is used as a receptacle or receiving space for a cutting member) and said chamber is capped by said cutting end when said instruments are magnetically paired (paragraph 42, 46-48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA TAN LE whose telephone number is (703)756-1252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/KHOA TAN LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /MOHAMED G GABR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
