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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 was amended in the claimset dated 10/21/2025.
Claim 3 was cancelled in the claimset dated 10/21/2025.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 2 are pending and under consideration.
Specification
The use of the terms PeproTech, Lonza, Corning, Thermo Fisher, Sigma-Aldrich, BD Biosciences, Bethyl lab (Bethyl Laboratories), Abcam, Thermo, Cell Signaling Technology, Origene, Santacruz (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc), Miltenyi Biotech, Enzo Life Sciences, and Tocris which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term(s) should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term(s) should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term(s).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (CN 106190951 A1)
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Yan et al. discloses a method of differentiation from adipose mesenchymal stem cells into liver cells by way of using an induction system comprising multiple different types of cell factors which induce the mesenchymal stem cells into liver cells. The method taught by Yan is comprised of fewer steps than other protocols, making it advantageous. (Pg 1, Abstract) In Example 3 of the claimed invention, Yan teaches use of mouse adipocyte stem cells (ADSC) isolated from the animal, establishing primary culture for expansion of said cells before transferring the cultures to hepatic induction medium. (Pg 7-8, Example 3) The induction medium contains FGF4, HGF, OSM, aFGF, insulin transferrin selenium, EGF, and bFGF, which are all present in the media simultaneously. Analysis of the resulting differentiated hepatic cells revealed albumin markers, Ck-18, CK-19, AFP, and CYP1A1, all known hepatocyte markers. (Pg 8, Example 3) This fully reads on the media composition of claim 1, and further reads on claim 2 by way of incorporation of at least one of PS, GlutaMAX, HEPESS, N2, N-acetylcysteine, [Leu15]-Gastrin 1, HGF, vitamin A free B27 supplement, A83-01, nicotinamide, forskolin, dexamethasone, or a combination thereof, in addition to the use of stem cells in the hepatic differentiation process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNA M THUESON whose telephone number is (571) 272-3680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 EST. 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, Tracy Vivlemore, can be reached on (571) 272-2914. 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.
/HANNA MARIE THUESON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1638
/Tracy Vivlemore/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638
Prosecution Insights