UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*79245971*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`   
`
`U.S. APPLICATION
`SERIAL NO.   79245971
`
`           
`
`MARK: SATURN
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`  
`       Christopher Revell
`  
`       FUJIFILM Diosynth
`Biotechnologies
`         UK Limited,
`           MANCHESTER M2
`7HA
`    
`    UNITED KINGDOM
`APPLICANT:
`FUJIFILM Diosynth
`Biotechnologies UK Lim
`ETC.
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`    
`   
`
`NO:       
`
`  N/A
`CORRESPONDENT E-
`
`MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1435634
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTIFICATION:  TO AVOID PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF THE REQUEST FOR
`EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE A COMPLETE RESPONSE
`TO THIS PROVISIONAL PARTIAL REFUSAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE “DATE ON WHICH THE
`NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO WIPO (MAILING DATE)” LOCATED ON THE WIPO COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING THIS
`NOTIFICATION.
`
`In addition to the Mailing Date appearing on the WIPO cover letter, a holder (hereafter “applicant”) may confirm this Mailing Date using the
`USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.  To do so, enter the U.S. application serial number
`for this application and then select “Documents.”   The Mailing Date used to calculate the response deadline for this provisional partial refusal is
`the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
`
`This is a PROVISIONAL PARTIAL REFUSAL of the request for extension of protection of the mark in the above-referenced U.S. application
`
`that applies to only the following goods and services in the application:  
`
`Class 01: Cell cultures used in industry and science
`
`Class 42: Scientific, industrial and technical research, development and analysis services relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures
`and vectors in the field of biotechnology; process development, namely, development of processes for the use of mammalian cell cultures
`and vectors in the manufacture of biotechnology products; project studies relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in
`the field of biotechnology
`
`See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).  See below in this notification (hereafter “Office action”) for details regarding the provisional partial refusal.
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES
`
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`Prior-Filed Application Advisory
`Identification of Goods and Services
`
`THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 42 ONLY
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5439046 and
`5439047.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, the examining attorney concludes that confusion as to the source or sponsorship is likely between applicant’s
`mark “SATURN” and registrant’s marks “SATIRN” .
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of
`confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361,
`177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc. , 450
`F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d
`
`1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123
`USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the [services] and differences in the marks.”);
`TMEP §1207.01.
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`The applied-for mark is “SATURN” in standard characters.   The registered marks, owned by the same registrant are “SATIRN” (Registration
`No. 5439046) and “SATIRN” with a design element (Registration No. 5439047).
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital
`Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d
`1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`In this case, the applied-for mark and registered marks are essentially phonetic equivalents notwithstanding the single letter difference.  Slight
`differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n , 222 USPQ 350, 351
`(TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The design element in the registered mark (Registration No. 5439047) does not obviate the likelihood of confusion.   When evaluating a
`composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater
`impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC,
`126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP
`§1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is
`accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911
`(citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc. , 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`In summary, the marks create a substantially similar overall commercial impression because they contain the phonetic equivalent terms
`“SATURN” and “SATIRN”.
`  As a result, the marks are confusingly similar.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Similarity of the Services
`
`Applicant’s services are identified as “Scientific, industrial and technical research, development and analysis services relating to the use of
`mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of biotechnology; process development, namely, development of processes for the use of
`mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the manufacture of biotechnology products; project studies relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures
`and vectors in the field of biotechnology” in Class 42.
`
`Registrant’s services are identified as “Research and development of vaccines and medicines” in Class 42.
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic
`evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).   
`
`In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe the services (Scientific, industrial and technical research, development and analysis
`services relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of biotechnology; process development, namely, development of
`processes for the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the manufacture of biotechnology products; project studies relating to the use of
`mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of biotechnology), which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including
`registrant’s more narrow identification ( Research and development of vaccines and medicines).  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125
`USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and
`registrant’s services are legally identical.   See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly,
`Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d
`1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Furthermore, the compared services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am.
`Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898
`(Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are
`such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning
`LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007));
`TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
`The attached Internet evidence establishes that the relevant services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same
`classes of consumers in the same fields of use – specifically, it establishes that biotechnology research and development could encompass
`research and development of vaccines and medicines.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are considered related for likelihood of
`confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d
`1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).  For example:
`
`www.omicsonline.org/open-access/role-of-biotechnology-in-improving-human-
`At
`health-2155-9929-1000309.php?aid=82443&view=mobile, “ Biotechnology has offered modern medical devices for diagnostic and
`preventive purposes, which include diagnostic test kits, vaccines and radio-labeled biological therapeutics used for imaging and analysis.”
`At www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168165604003025, “The recent development of powerful biotechnological tools applied
`to genome-based approaches has revolutionized vaccine development, biological research and clinical diagnostics.”
`At www.jstor.org/stable/4454924?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents, “New developments in biotechnology have led to a number of new
`approaches for the development of vaccines aimed at preventing infectious disease.”
`At www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/03/biotechnology-in-medicine-revolutionizing-lives-of-people/, “The use of biotechnology in the area of
`medicine is also known as red biotechnology.”
`At www.biotechnology.amgen.com/developing-biotech-medicines.html, biotechnology is in assisting scientists to identify the best targets
`for new medicine.
`
`Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to
`travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus,
`applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
`
`  Therefore, consumers
`In summary, the applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and identify related services.
`are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that these services originate from a common source. Accordingly, registration must be refused
`under section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION ADVISORY
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87704420 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the
`mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a
`likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of
`applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced
`application.
`
`In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict
`between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits
`applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support
`of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
`
`THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
`
`Class 01
`
`The wording “industry” and “development” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not make clear the
`
`purpose of the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  
`
`Class 42
`
`The wording “process development, namely, development of processes for the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the manufacture of
`biotechnology products” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not make clear the nature of the
`services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  A process or system is only a way of doing something, and is not generally a service. 
`TMEP §1301.02(e).  An applied-for mark that identifies only a process, style, method, or system is therefore not registrable as a service mark.  
`
`In
`
`re HSB Solomon Assocs., LLC, 102 USPQ2d at 1270;  In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263, 264 (TTAB 1984).  
`
`The wording “project studies relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of biotechnology” in the identification of
`
`services is indefinite and must be clarified because does not make clear the nature of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  
`Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (examining attorney’s suggestions (examining attorney’s suggestions in bold font):  
`
`Class 01: Chemicals for use in biotechnological manufacturing processes, namely, cell cultures used in science; Chemicals for use in
`biotechnological manufacturing processes, namely,   mammalian cell cultures and vectors, being independent replicating pieces of DNA that
`can transfer DNA sequences
`
`Class 40: Processing and manufacturing of vectors, cell cultures and recombinant proteins for use in biotechnology industries to the order and
`specification of others; manufacture, processing and production of recombinant proteins for use in the biotechnology industries to the order and
`specification of others
`
`Class 42: Scientific, industrial and technical research, development and analysis services relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and
`vectors in the field of biotechnology; Scientific project studies relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of
`biotechnology
`
`Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services
`beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods
`and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).  Additionally, for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the
`scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of
`the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau); and the classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that
`assigned by the International Bureau.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).  Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a)
`application, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one existing class to another.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP
`§1401.03(d).
`
`For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S.
`Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal,
`applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a
`requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “ Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video
`“Response to Office Action ” for more information and tips on responding.
`
`FAILING TO RESPOND WILL RESULT IN PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF APPLICATION:  If applicant does not respond to this
`Office action within the six-month period for response, the goods and services in International Class International Classes 01 and 42 identified
`
`above, in the beginning of this Office action, will be deleted from the application.  
`
`In such case, the application will then proceed only with the following goods and services:
`
`Class 01: mammalian cell cultures and vectors, being independent replicating pieces of DNA that can transfer DNA sequences, each for
`manufacture and development in the biotechnology industries
`
`Class 40: Scientific, industrial and technical research, development and analysis services relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and
`vectors in the field of biotechnology; process development, namely, development of processes for the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors
`in the manufacture of biotechnology products; project studies relating to the use of mammalian cell cultures and vectors in the field of
`biotechnology
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
`
`WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL PARTIAL REFUSAL:  Any response to this provisional refusal must be
`personally signed by an individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate
`officer or general partner).  37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §712.01.  If applicant hires a qualified U.S. attorney to respond on his or
`her behalf, then the attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(2)(i), 11.18(a); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01.  Qualified U.S. attorneys
`include those in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S.
`commonwealths or U.S. territories.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.14(a); TMEP §§602, 712.01.  Additionally, for all responses, the
`proper signatory must personally sign the document or personally enter his or her electronic signature on the electronic filing.  See 37 C.F.R.
`§2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.  The name of the signatory must also be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent to the signature,
`or identified elsewhere in the filing.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(b).
`
`In general, foreign attorneys are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an
`amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal).  See 37 C.F.R. §11.14(c), (e); TMEP §§602.03-
`
`.03(b), 608.01.  
`
`DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE:  The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the United States to
`designate a domestic representative upon whom any notice or process may be served.  TMEP §610; see 15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37
`
`C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2).  Such designations may be filed online at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.     
`
`/Katrina J. Goodwin/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 122
`571-272-7605
`Katrina.Goodwin@uspto.gov
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
`  
`

`

`worldwide because of infectious diseases. Biotechnology has played a dynamic role in improving the challenges regarding to
`human health as it has flexibility to reduce global health differences by the provision of promising technologies. Health, life
`quality and expectancy of life have been increased worldwide through the services provided by biotechnology. Malnutrition
`mainly arises due to the lack of essential nutrients and vitamins in food and ultimately results in death. Biotechnology has
`play a major role in eliminating these problems by producing nutrients enriched food such as Golden Rice, Maize, potato and
`soybean etc. Biotechnology has also played an important role in controlling the environmental pollution through
`biodegradation of potential pollutants. This review sketches improvement of human health bythe use of biotechnological
`advances in molecular diagnostics. medicine, vaccines. nutritionally enriched genetically modified crops and waste
`management.
`
`4 29:59 PM 1112912018
`
`
`
`x .
`X Role or Eimechnology ir
`
`
`C' 0 [ i Secure [ htlpS://www.omicson|ine.org/0pen-access/role-of—biotechno[ogy-in-improvirlg-humarl-hea[lb-2155-9929-1000309.php?aid:82443&view:mobile
`Trademarks Next Ge
`D Design Search Code
`G GoogleAdvanced Se
`D TextComparison-C 3 Intellectual Property
`9 us Rules of Practice
`D Screenshot
`® Helpful Links
`0 USPTO Trademark L2
`Eioactive Compound
`Biology of Cancer
`Eiomarkers in Clinical Trials
`Biomarkers in Oncology
`
`n............ ReaEhUS e @+44719047929220
`
`Recommen ded JOUFHHIS
`
`
`Cellular 1; Molecular Medicine
`Journal
`Cancer Science & Therapy Journal
`Oncology & Cancer Case Repons
`Journal
`Lung Cancer Diagnosis &
`Treatmenl Journal
`Cancer Diagnosis Journal
`Molecular and Genetic Medlclne
`Journal
`Molecular & Genellc Medicine
`Journal
`Advances in Molecular Diagnostics
`Journal
`Biology and Medicine Journal
`Genetic Engineering Journal
`Molecular and Genetic Journal
`
`555 Apr-5
`
`Abstract
`
`Keywords
`Biotechnology; Human health; Infectious diseases; Molecular diagnosis; Vaccines; Drugs
`
`Introduction
`Biotechnology contributes much towards the growing public and global health needs. It has revolutionized mankind since its
`existence. It provides effective diagnostics, prevention and treatment measures including production of novel drugs and
`recombinant vaccines [1]. It gives effective drug delivery approaches, new methods for therapeutics, nutritionally enriched
`genetically modified crops and efficient methods for environmental cleanup. Health. life quality and expectancy of life have
`been increased worldwide through the services provided by biotechnology [2,3]. Parasitic and infectious diseases like
`Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) [46] and tuberculosis (TB) have been diagnosed rapidly at relatively low cost.
`Molecular diagnostic tools including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [7]. recombinant antigens and monoclonal antibodies
`have been used for this purpose. Biotechnology has offered modern diagnostic test kits, rickettsial, bacterial and viral
`vaccines along with radiolabelled biological therapeutics for imaging and analysis. Vaccines have eliminated small pox, polio
`and other deadly diseases for the last hundred years. Biotechnology has made advancements in vaccination by making
`recombinant vaccines that have the potential to eradicate non-communicable diseases like cancer [8,9]. Naked DNA vaccines,
`viral vectorvaccines [10] and plant-derived vaccines [11]) are found to be most effective against a number of bacterial and
`viral disorders [12]].
`
`
`
`Therapeutic proteins have a large influence on noncommunicable diseases responsible for over 60% of deaths in developing
`countries [13]). Transgenic bacteria, yeasts, plants [2,14] and mammals [15] have been used as a factory of recombinant
`therapeutic proteins. New desired genes are introduced into these systems to produce therapeutic proteins of interest in
`large quantities and are then purified [16]. The most important recombinant therapeutic proteins include erythropoietin for
`
`“and" "noun.“ human." .inu. m“
`r. innlmmia "mini,“ ,4:ssssss r11 ”1 mm: insulin cnqim...m,. 1 mom.” “Alli...”
`mmsjlwvmornicsonline orgiopenaccesslroiembiolechmlogwlHllDKNIighunanlleamfi55992511 000309 pm?aid=82443&vievnnolmie
`
`Article Usage
`
`Leave a message
`
`rtlcle Tools
`
`Export cilation
`Share/Elog this article
`
`

`

`4:52:01 PM 11mm
`
`j];m. x
`i
`3 i 1
`Laban
`
`C 0 l i Secure l https://www.sciencedireclaim/science/article/pii/50168165604003025
`fi‘
`3
`
`Apps
`a; TrademarkstGel
`G GougleAdvanoed Se
`B TextCompariscin-Ci 3 InteltedualPruperly
`f us Rulesuf Practice
`B Screenshut
`B Design Search Code ® Helpful Links 0 USPTO Trademarkté
`»
`
`ScienceDirect
`
`journals 8: Books
`
`Register
`
`Sign in ) ®
`
`a Download PDF
`
`Share
`
`Export
`
`‘ Search SoienceDi'rect a Advanced
`
`Outline
`Abstract
`Keywords
`lnboduction
`Conventional vaccinology versus reverse vaccinology
`Reverse vaccinology applied to group B Meningococcus
`DNA microarray technology
`. Investigating gene expression In vivo
`Proteomics
`Comparative genomerproteome technologies
`. Conclusions
`
`mwmuawmgReferences
`
`
`
`Journal of Biotechnology
`Volume 113. Issues 1—3, 30 September 2004, Pages 15-32
`
`Biotechnology and vaccines: application of functional genomics
`to Neisseria meningitidis and other bacterial pathogens
`Dawde Serruto, Jeannette AduaBobie, Barbara Capecchi, Rino Rappuoli 2" -, Managrazia Fizza,Vega Masignani
`Show more
`https Ildoi orgl10 1016]].Jbiotec 2004 D3 024
`
`Get rights and content
`
`Figures (3)
`
`Abstract
`
`
`
`Tables (2)
`B] Tablel
`E Table 2
`
`Since its introduction, vaccinology has been very effective in preventing infectious diseases.
`However, in several cases, the conventional approach to identify protective antigens, based
`on biochemical, immunological and microbiological methods, has failed to deliver successful
`vaccine candidates against major bacterial pathogens.
`
`The availability of a genome
`
`provides an inclusive virtual catalogue of all the potential antigens from which it is possible to
`select the molecules that are likely to be more effective. Here, we describe the use of
`“reverse vaccinology", which has been successful in the identification of potential vaccines
`candidates against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B and review the use of functional
`genomics approaches as DNA microarrays, proteomics and comparative genome analysis
`for the identification of virulence factors and novel vaccine candidates. in addition, we
`describe the potential of these powerful technologies in understanding the pathogenesis of
`various bacteria.
`
`mm Mwww scienoedired colnlsdencelarlictelpiirsm68165604003025
`
` Part of special issue:
`
`Highlights from the ECBH: Building
`Bridges between Biosciences and
`Bioengineering
`Edited by U.von StockarandA Puehler
`
`Download full issue
`
`Other articles from this issue
`
`A
`
`Stem cells and pancieatic diflerentiation in vitro
`Journal otEliotechnology, Volume 113, Issues 173, 30
`E Download PDF Wew details v
`Genomics for food safety and sustainable animal
`Journal otEiotechnology, Volume 113, Issues 173, 30
`E Download PDF Wew details v
`Experience trom Lipizan horse and salmonid spe...
`Journal otEiolechnology, Volume 113, Issues 1—3, 3!!
`E Download PDF Wew details v
`Wew more articles
`>
`
`Recommended articles
`
`Citing articles (45)
`
`Article Metrics
`
`Cantimas
`
`v
`
`v
`
`A
`
`FEEdbECk O
`
`V
`
`

`

`4:54:29 PM 11i‘29r‘2018
` saga
`
`wnatBiutecnndlungas 3 1 i x \K
`
`
`C' 0 i i Secure i httpS://www.jstot.org/stable/4454924?seq:1#n1etadataiinfoitabicontents
`39! i
`3
`r; Trademarks Nt-xt Ge
`(5 Gaogle Advanced Se
`D Text Comparison - C 3 Intellectual Properly
`f us Rules of Practice
`D Screenshut
`D Design Search Code ® Helpful Links 0 usp‘ro Trademark La
`»
`
`Apps
`
`I
`
`
`
`8
`
`Diseases
`Vol 11, Supplement 3
`Rel/fem DI [mmus
`tntemationai Sympasltlm on
`VacEtne Development and
`Utilization (May _ Jun ,
`1939), pp. 3539—3523 (5
`W965)
`Published by Oxford
`
`Unrversity Press
`
`( Prevlous Item | Nattltem )
`hnps llwwwtslor nrgtsrablem54924
`
`
`POIicNIan Vacrlna \firuses
`Transcnptldnal regulatory elements
`Rubella vacclnes Herpes strnplet virus vaccines
`\l’lrulenne
`
`Give feedback
`
`Abstract
`New developments in biotechnology have
`led to a number of new approaches furthe
`development of vaccines aimed at
`preventing infectious disease. This report
`summarizes some of the principles
`underlying these newtechnologies and
`illustrates some applications of these
`technologies to practical vaccine
`development.
`
`o In n m Emmitly M m All tam mm MQ-le/lllllmllwlm
`KEVIEWS or IMEC'IBDS nlswrx - VOL ll, SUPl'IaEMI-IW I 4 MAVJIM WI
`
`>
`
`A
`
`What Biotechnology Has an Otter Vaccine Development
`Inn-INJicr-r-nthMJh-m
`FM the mam-mt vithnrm andMorn-tuni-
`Grating: Warm-r School man. Mata-atrium
`«M Mr Mum-t Dumlm a] ”ram. mam mm!
`
`Comntionnlvmcineshave been amen; the man
`tuceesctul at all bioloaic products Smallpox has
`been eradicated. Utilization nt‘ vaccines against
`potiomycttrit. mule. rubella. and mumps otter:
`thrhcsl means nrprcvenrinathesed‘tseucs. In spite
`orthdrcandothar5mm therehave been failures.
`For a number of wind disarm. there are no tn“.
`litre vaccines. Vancinr: uninst bulcriil nrodtictr
`have. mic-custom been incfkdiv: or taxi: Vaccines
`minat parasiter have only beam to tie a mlily.
`Biotechnology has opened up two mill)! new
`mullet for vaccine dmlonmtnti First. 'lrilatt-chntol-
`try unwittci tools for undernunatillx Virulence and
`the nature of the microbial immunngem Second.
`himnclrnalogy offers new strategies forum'noeting
`vaccines.
`In order to indmrn effective immune mponsr.
`
`'
`impululll m know [h