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. A preliminary amendment was received 6/6/2022. The amendment has been entered. Claims 25-49 are pending, all have been considered on the merits. Priority Acknowledgement is made of the instant application’s claim for benefit as a continuation of prior-filed US application 16/330862 (now USP 11369714), which is a national stage entry under 35 USC 371 of PCT/GB2017/052607 (filed 9/7/2017), which claims priority to foreign application GB1615205.0 (filed 9/7/2016). Claim Objections Claims 41 and 44 are objected to for minor informalities: In claim 41: “from” should be “form”. In claim 44: “ neurone ” should be “neuron”. 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. Claim s 26 and 48 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 26 fails to correlate in scope with parent claim 25, and thus is considered indefinite. Parent claim 25 is drawn to an isolated jellyfish collagen hydrogel stable at a temperature of from 25 o C to 50 o C. Dependent claim 26 then states the hydrogel is stable up to at least 37 o C under cell culture conditions. Dependent claim 26 implies that the hydrogel is not necessarily stable at temperatures of >37 o C to 50 o C, which differs from the requirement of parent claim 25. It is thus not clear at what r anges the hydrogel is stable. Claim 48 uses the term “preferably”. The term “preferably” renders a claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation following the term is a claim limitation, or merely exemplary. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 45 fails to state a further limitation of the parent claim 33. Any cell can be co-cultured. Claim 45 does not require that a co-culture actually occurs. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 46 - 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Addad et al (Mar Drugs, 2011). Addad et al disclose processing of jellyfish collagen. Addad et al process several species of jellyfish and subject them to different collagen extraction techniques . In section 3.1 ( pg 977) Addad et al disclose purification of jellyfish collagen. The isolated solubilized collagen reads on a solution of purified jellyfish collagen . The processing steps included use of neutralization buffer Na 2 HPO 4 (See id ). In section 3.5 Addad et al use cross-linking agent EDC-NHS (See Pg 978). Regarding claim 46: The method of processing involves provision of a solution of purified jellyfish collagen , a Na 2 HPO 4 neutralization buffer and EDC-NHS cross-linking agent . The collection of these agents , as required to carry out the method of Addad et al, reads on a kit . Regarding claim 47: At Pg 978, section 3.5, Addad et al disclose the solution of purified jellyfish collagen having a concentration of 0.3 mg/mL, which is within the range of claim 47. Regarding claim 48: Na 2 HPO 4 neutralization buffer does not inherently contain free amines. 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 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addad et al (Mar Drugs, 2011), in view of Imhof et al (US 2016/0166737) . The teachings of Addad et al are set forth above. Addad et al anticipates the kit of claims 46-48. Regarding claim 49: Addad et al differs from claim 49 in that Addad et al use crosslinking agent EDC-NHS, not one of genipin , 1,4-BDDGE, or mucochloric acid. However, Imhof et al teach that all of EDC, 1,4-BDDGE and genipin are suitable crosslinking agents for collagen (See Imhof et al, para. 0033). Given the teachings in the art that genipin and/or 1,4-BDDGE are art recognized alternatives for EDC in the process of cross-linking collagen, it would have been prima facie obvious to have substituted genipin and/or 1,4-BDDGE for the EDC in the method of Addad et al, thereby providing genipin and/or 1,4-BDDGE as part of a ‘kit’ for carrying out the method of Addad et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of Imhof et al regarding suitability of each of the cross -linking agents on collagen. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 25 , 27-40, and 42-43 are allowed. Claims 41 and 44 would be allowed if the minor spelling errors are corrected. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are to an isolated jellyfish collagen hydrogel. This is interpreted as meaning a hydrogel containing jelly fish collagen. The adjective ‘isolated’ is interpreted as meaning the hydrogel is not part of a greater composition. The hydrogel is defined as being stable at a temperature of from 25 o C to 50 o C. This is interpreted as meaning the hydrogel will retain a hydrogel form (as opposed to liquefying) at temperatures from 25 o C to 50 o C. The closest prior art is Addad et al (Mar. Drugs, 2011) and Belogorodsky et al (WO 14106830). Both teach jellyfish collagen. Addad et al teach jellyfish collagen, as well as cross-linked jellyfish collagen; however, as persuasively argued in the parent application, cross-linking of collagen does not necessarily form a hydrogel . Addad et al does not explicitly teach a hydrogel comprising jellyfish collagen, much less a hydrogel that is stable at 25 o C to 50 o C. The processing steps of Addad et al are not the same as those taught in the instant specification, so no conclusion of inherency can be made. Belgorodosky et al teaches hydrogels comprising jellyfish collagen (See Example 2B), however Belgorodosky et al do not report on the stability of the various hydrogels at any specific temperature. It is noted that in Example 5 B (para. 0089-0090) Belgorodosky et al report testing mechanical properties, and state “samples from batch HG36 were tested…” and “a phase transition is seen at 120 o C…indicating that the sample is stable at temperatures until 120 o C”, however it is unclear what batch HG36 is (there is a hydrogel from batch HG36 b , but it is not clear Example 5B is testing the hydrogel from HG36b). The processing steps of Belgorodosky et al are not the same as those taught in the instant specification, so no conclusion of inherency can be made. Regarding the parent patent US Patent 11369714: The parent patent claims are to a method of producing a jellyfish collagen hydrogel, however the parent patent claims do not specify the hydrogel thereby produced is stable at any particular temperature. The teachings of the specification show that the stability of hydrogel is dependent on its method of production, for example, the concentration and type of cross-linking agent used. As written, the claims of the parent patent do not necessarily produce a hydrogel having the stability currently claimed (the parent patent claims are broader, they are not limited to methods which will produce a hydrogel having the currently claimed stability). Therefore no rejection is made on grounds of non-statutory double patenting over the parent patent. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALLISON M FOX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2936 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christopher Babic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8507 . 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. /ALLISON M FOX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633