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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 50-56) the reply filed on August 28, 2025 is acknowledged. The examiner does not recommend canceling the withdrawn method 41-49 and device 57-60 claims , since should system claim 50 found to include patentable limitations during prosecution , these patentable limitations could be included in the pending method and device claim s making them allowable. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) as follows: t he later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional a pplication No. 62/960,298, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application does not support a culture chamber enclosed in both a transport box and a storage container , which falls within the scope of claim 50 . Accordingly, claims 50-56 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application date January 13, 2020. The effective filing date of the instant application is considered the international date in which the PCT application was filed, January 13, 2021 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more of a transport box and a storage container configured to contain the culture chamber” as recited in claim 50 (the figures do not show a plurality of transport boxes and a plurality of storage containers, which falls within the scope of the claim) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 50-56 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 50 recites “ one or more of a transport box and a storage container sealed against continuous flow of gases or liquids and configured to contain the culture chamber ” . The scope of the claim covers more than one transport box and more than one storage container. This is confusing and indefinite how a plurality of both transport boxes and storage containers would be used in this system. For clarity, the examiner recommends applicant recite “a transport box or a storage container sealed…”. Also this how the examiner will interpret the recitation. Claim 53, line 4 recites the tissue chamber including an enclosed tissue chamber configured to encapsulate the tissue by the semipermeable membrane. This is already recited in claim 50. It is unclear what this trying to claim. Also, it is noted that “the transport box or the storage container” in claim 53 does not agree in number with “o ne or more of a transport box and a storage container ” currently recited in claim 50. Claim 54 recites the semipermeable membrane has one or more of: a pore size of at least about 250 pm, a pore size of about 100 μm to about 1000 μm , a pore size of about 0.22 μm to about 1000 μm , or about 0.22 μm to about 100 μm ; a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) at about 50 kDa or at about 200,000 kDa ; or a mesh opening rate of about 1% to about 50%. It is respectfully pointed out that a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 54 recites the broad recitation s to the membrane including a “pore size of at least a pore size of about 100 μm to about 1000 μm , a pore size of about 0.22 μm to about 1000 μm , or about 0.22 μm to about 100 μm ” , and the claim also recites “at least 250 pm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Also note that claim 54 includes two periods at the end of the sentence. Similarly, claims 55 and 56 recite broad recitations to the temperature in the culture chamber being maintained below 10° C., optionally from about 0° C. to about 4° C., and further optionally at about 4° C . As with claim 54 above, claim s 55 and 56 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In addition, the use of “optionally” or “further optionally” in the claims should be avoided for the same reason. The examiner recommend that these limitation be presented in new dependent claims. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 50-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin Jr. et al., (US 2010/0062519, hereafter “Franklin” , already of record ) in view of Cochrum et al., ( US 5,876,742 , hereinafter “ Cochrum ”, already of record ). Note: all of the functional/process language in the instant claims 50-56 (e.g. tissue chamber is configured to hold an alginate solution wherein upon addition of a calcium solution or a barium solution or both through the inlet port, the alginate solution gels and encapsulates the tissue ” in claim 50 ) hav e been given full patentable weight by the examiner. The determination of whether the functional/process language limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case. In certain instances, functional/process recitations recited in apparatus type claim are not limiting. However, in this case the f unctional language in the claims have received patentable weight because it clearly defines a specific structural feature or mechanism that performs a function, rather than simply describing the intended use or result of the invention, and it is supported by the specification, providing a clear understanding of the claimed invention to someone skilled in the art; essentially, the claimed function is tied to a defined structure or process, not just a general concept. Regarding claim 50 , Franklin teaches a tissue transporting system (Abstract "An organ and tissue preservation and transport apparatus") comprising: (a) a tissue chamber partially or fully formed from a semipermeable membrane 25a and configured to contain tissue to be transported (para [0026] “the first chamber 25a houses the organ"; para (0041) "The semipermeable member allows for selective diffusion between the first chamber and the second chamber"; see para [0041] et seq., and Fig 6), the tissue chamber being enclosed (see Fig 6 that shows chamber 25a is enclosed); (b) an outer chamber 25b having an inlet port and an outlet port, the outer chamber being configured to contain the tissue chamber (para [ 0026 ] "a second chamber 25b"; para [0028] "Chamber 25b may contain one or more openings 50 functioning for the inlet or outlet”; see Fig 6 that shows chamber 25b containing the tissue chamber 25a), the outer chamber being enclosed (see Fig 6 that shows chamber 25b enclosed) ; and (c) a transport box or a storage container 20 configured to contain the outer chamber (para [0025] "within the portable casing 20"; see Fig 6 that shows casing containing 25b) . T he tissue chamber is an enclosed tissue chamber (see Fig 6 that shows chamber 25a is enclosed) configured to encapsulate the tissue by the semipermeable membrane (para [0041] "The semipermeable member allows for selective diffusion between the first chamber and the second chamber", it is understood that as the tissue is fully inside the enclosed chamber and is encapsulated). Franklin does not teach that the tissue chamber is configured to hold an alginate solution wherein upon addition of a calcium solution or a barium solution or both through the inlet port, the alginate solution gels and encapsulates the tissue . However, in the related art of tissue transplant ( Cochrum - col 4 In 24 et seq., ”[o] ne aspect of the current invention concerns a biological tissue transplant"), Cochrum teaches suspending the tissue in alginate solution (col 5 In 13-14 “ [s] uspending and dispersing biological tissue in a solution of soluble alginate") and adding calcium solution or barium solution so the alginate solution gels and encapsulates the tissue (col 5 In 11 -23 , “capturing the droplets of the biological tissue suspended in alginate of step (a) in a divalent cation solution, such as calcium chloride, barium chloride, or Strontium chloride, to produce gelled spheres wherein the biological tissue is suspended in a gelled primary alginate layer") , the culture chamber being enclosed . Cochrum recognizes that this process of encapsuling the tissue an alginate solution gel extends the v iability and longevity of tissue for shipping across long distances (see col 12, ln 21 et seq.) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to combine these references and us e the alginate/divalent gelling system of Cochrum in the transport system of Franklin by adding the divalent solution through the inlet port since Cochrum recognizes that this process extends the v iability and longevity of tissue transplants for shipping across long distances (see col 12, ln 21 et seq.) Regarding claim 51 and 52 , Franklin in view of Cochrum teaches the system of claim 50 . Cochrum teaches wherein the alginate solution is an ultra-purified alginate solution (see col 12, ln 25 et seq., “t he alginate solutions contain alginates preferably having mannuronate to guluronate moiety ratios of from 1:6 to 6:1, and preferably are free from impurities which would impair the viability and longevity of tissue transplants ” which is considered an “ultra-purified alginate solution” in the art. ) Regarding claim 53, Franklin in view of Cochrum teaches the tissue transporting system of claim 50, Franklin teaches a temperature sensor disposed in the transport box or the storage container and configured to measure temperature of the culture chamber ( see para [0058] “ [t] he system monitor registers and records the temperature of the portable casing, chamber , and/or organ through the use of temperature sensors"). Regarding claim 54, Franklin in view of Cochrum teaches the tissue transporting system of claim 50, Franklin teaches at para [0041] et seq. “[t] he semipermeable member allows for selective diffusion between the first chamber and the second chamber. In this embodiment, the first chamber houses the organ while the second chamber contains a dialysate. The temperature of the dialysate is controlled through the use of a heat pump, cooling blocks or other similar mechanism either within or substantially surrounding the second chamber. The dialysate is circulated by convection, the use of a pump, a concentration gradient or other similar mechanism and diffuses across the semipermeable membrane thus affecting the temperature of the first chamber. For example, if the temperature of the dialysate is lowered then diffusion across the semipermeable membrane would in effect lower the temperature of the first chamber. This embodiment is advantageous in that the semipermeable membrane can allow for selective diffusion and thus additional elements that will not diffuse across the semipermeable membrane may be included within either the first chamber or the second chamber. For example, the second chamber may contain potent buffers that will not diffuse across the semipermeable membrane into the first chamber. ” Franklin and Cochrum do not specifically recite the semipermeable membrane has one or more of: a pore size of at least about 250 pm, a pore size of about 100 μm to about 1000 μm , a pore size of about 0.22 μm to about 1000 μm , or about 0.22 μm to about 100 μm ; a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) at about 50 kDa or at about 200,000 kDa ; or a mesh opening rate of about 1% to about 50%. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized a semipermeable membrane in the combined system of Franklin and Cochrum with such properties through routine experimentation depending on the needs of the system as desired flow rate and exclusion of the membrane . Regarding claim 55, Franklin in view of Cochrum teaches the tissue transporting system of claim 50, Franklin teaches a heat insulation component (temperature control unit) configured to maintain the temperature in one or more of the transport box, the storage container, and the culture chamber below 10° C., optionally from about 0° C. to about 4° C., and further optionally at about 4° C. Specially, Franklin discloses at para [0038] “[e] ffective preservation of the organ 15 can be obtained at a variety of temperatures from hypothermic temperature (about 4-10 degrees Centigrade) to standard human body temperature (about 37 degrees Centigrade). The ideal temperature that the organ 15 should be held to maintain over a long period is still being investigated, but there are indications that the ideal temperature should be maintained within a narrow range and the best temperature may be higher than zero degrees Centigrade. Some contemplated temperature ranges for the organ 15 in the embodiments described are 4-6 degrees Centigrade, 10-12 degrees Centigrade and 16-18 degrees Centigrade. Any stated minimum temperature can be associated with any stated maximum temperature that is as great or greater to define a specifically contemplated temperature range. ” Regarding, claim 56, Franklin in view of Cochrum teaches the tissue transporting system of claim 50, Franklin teaches a cooling component (temperature control unit 30) configured to maintain the temperature in one or more of the transport box, the storage container, and the culture chamber below 10° C., optionally from about 0° C. to about 4° C., and further optionally at about 4° C. Specially, Franklin discloses at para [0038], [e] ffective preservation of the organ 15 can be obtained at a variety of temperatures from hypothermic temperature (about 4-10 degrees Centigrade) to standard human body temperature (about 37 degrees Centigrade). The ideal temperature that the organ 15 should be held to maintain over a long period is still being investigated, but there are indications that the ideal temperature should be maintained within a narrow range and the best temperature may be higher than zero degrees Centigrade. Some contemplated temperature ranges for the organ 15 in the embodiments described are 4-6 degrees Centigrade, 10-12 degrees Centigrade and 16-18 degrees Centigrade. Any stated minimum temperature can be associated with any stated maximum temperature that is as great or greater to define a specifically contemplated temperature range. Citations to art In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well. Conclusion No claims are allowed. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: a. Roehm et al., (US 2023/0348830) which disclose a bioreactor that include s : a tissue culture chamber; at least one inlet port into the tissue culture chamber; an inlet port member located in each inlet including an inlet tube extending into the tissue culture chamber; at least one outlet port into the tissue culture chamber; an outlet port member located in each outlet including an outlet tube extending into the tissue culture chamber; an optical cover; and a hydrogel can be located in the tissue culture chamber having at least one lumen fluidly coupling the inlet tube to the outlet tube, wherein an inlet interface region of the hydrogel is constrained around the inlet tube and an outlet interface region of the hydrogel is constrained around the outlet tube. b. Barkai et al., (US 2016/0346431) disclose a system including a plurality of donor cells and a first alginate structure that encapsulates the plurality of donor cells. The first alginate structure has a guluronic acid concentration of between 64% and 74%. The system additionally includes a second alginate structure that surrounds the first alginate structure, the second alginate structure having a mannuronic acid concentration of between 52% and 60%. A selectively-permeable membrane is coupled at least in part to the second alginate structure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2374 . The examiner can normally be reached between FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30am-7pm EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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. E-mail communication Authorization Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270- 3638. 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. /P. Kathryn Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798