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
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 12-21 are currently pending.
Claims 13-21 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 12 have been considered on the merits.
Drawings
Color drawings are accepted. See Petition Decision 12/3/2025.
Specification
Amendment to the specification 11/17/2025 is noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn in light of the amendments of 11/7/2025.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy et al. (WO 2017/160862 A1) (published on 09/21/2017) (cited in IDS filed on 10/14/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches a method for preparing a plant scaffold comprising decellularizing a plant tissue and contacting animal cells with the plant scaffold for engineering mammalian tissue (grown animal tissue) [0014]-[0016]. The plant material is edible since Murphy describes using exemplary plants such as spinach, sweet wormwood, vanilla, and peanut [0050] (Fig. 2). In addition, Example 1 explicitly describes the decellularization of parsley [0071]. Murphy teaches the decellularized plant tissue can be directly placed into contact8 with a solution containing mammalian cells. The cells are taught to adhere to the decellularized plant tissue and proliferate. [0053]; Table 2; [0087]; claim 29. Murphy also teaches the decellularized plant may be functionalized. (1)The plant scaffold comprises decellularized plant tissue and a plant adhesion molecule or (2) the plant scaffold comprises decellularized plant tissue and a mineral layer. [0013]; Fig 8B; [0074]; Table 2. Therefore, Murphy teaches 3 exemplified embodiments: decellularized plant tissue with animal cells; decellularized plant tissue with mineral layer with animal cells; decellularized plant tissue with RDDOPA with animal cells. See Table 2 and claims.
The scaffold directly placed with cells or the use of a mineral coating reads on the proviso “does not comprise an adherent coating”. Since the prior art teaches the same scaffold (decellularized plant tissue and with animal cells) the grown animal tissue is edible.
Regarding claim 2, the plant tissue can include leaf tissue, stem tissue, root tissue, and combinations thereof [0050]. Regarding claim 3, the plant material is from angiosperms (e.g., parsley). Regarding claims 4 and 5, the plant tissue is decellularized via detergent perfusion using a detergent or enzyme, such as by immersing plant tissues in solutions comprising SDS, Triton-X-100 and bleach [0052] [0071]. Regarding claim 6, decellularizing can be performed with enzymes including lipases, thermolysin, galactosidases, nucleases, trypsin and combinations thereof [0052]. Regarding claim 7 Murphy teaches the decellularized plant tissue can be directly placed into contain with a solution containing mammalian cells [0053]. Reading on” submersing cell media.” Regarding claim 8, the animal cells are fibroblasts [0086] [0087]. Regarding claim 12, the edible animal tissue is the product obtained when performing the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Since Murphy anticipates the steps recited in claim 1, then the result of forming edible animal tissue, wherein the edible animal tissue is a dried meat material is inherent to practicing the claimed method, in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art teaches an adherent coating and the instant invention is capable of seeding without the adherent coating. Applicant argues that the prior art teaches either a mineral coating or an adhesion protein coating.
As discussed in the rejection above. Murphy teaches 3 exemplified embodiments: decellularized plant tissue seeded with animal cells; decellularized plant tissue with mineral layer seeded with animal cells; decellularized plant tissue with RDDOPA seeded with animal cells. See Table 2 and claims. The scaffold directly placed with cells or the use of a mineral coating reads on the proviso “does not comprise an adherent coating”.
Applicant argues the mineral coating is excluded. However, the instant specification also teaches the embodiment of using a mineral layer is considered ‘functionalizing’ not adherent. This functionalization can contain adhesion molecules. Thus, the mineral layer itself is not taught to be an adherent coat without the use of the adhesion molecules. Murphy also teaches the use of the scaffold with only a mineral layer, i.e. without any adhesive molecules. Nonetheless, assuming arguendo that “adherent coating” excludes the mineral coating, as discussed in the rejection, Murphy teaches the decellularized plant tissue can be directly placed into contact with a solution containing mammalian cells. The cells are taught to adhere to the decellularized plant tissue and proliferate. [0053]; Table 2; claim 29 (decellularizing plant tissue to provide a plant scaffold with a perfusable structure and culturing a cell within the plant scaffold.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMILA G. LANDAU whose telephone number is (571)272-0614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3:30.
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 supervisor, Dan Sullivan can be reached at 571-272-0900. 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.
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights