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 .
Status of Application, Amendments and/or Claims
The amendment of 08 April 2026 has been entered in full. Claims 7-12 and 28 are amended. Claims 1-6 are cancelled.
Claims 14-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 October 2025.
Claims 7-13 and 28 are under consideration in the instant application.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
1. The objections to claims 7, 11, and 12 as set forth at page 3 of the previous Office Action of 08 December 2025 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims (08 April 2026).
2. The rejections of claims 7-13 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as set forth at pages 3-5 of the previous Office Action of 08 December 2025 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims (08 April 2026).
3. The rejection of claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gadellaa et al. (WO 2009/020389) as set forth at pages 5-6 of the previous Office Action of 08 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 7 (08 April 2026). Specifically, Gadellaa et al. do not teach that the protein-containing plant seed comprises a native plant seed protein selected from the group consisting of dehydrins, protease inhibitors, hordeins, LEA proteins, cyclophilins, ABA-responsive proteins, globulins, prolamins, vicilins, glutelins, and zeins.
4. The rejection of claims 7-10, 12, 13, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petit et al. (WO 2010/096588 or US 2012/0315697) as set forth at pages 6-7 of the previous Office Action of 08 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 7 (08 April 2026). Specifically, Petit et al. do not teach that the cell culture supplement comprises a native plant seed protein selected from the group consisting of dehydrins, protease inhibitors, hordeins, LEA proteins, cyclophilins, ABA-responsive proteins, globulins, prolamins, vicilins, glutelins, and zeins.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5a. Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
6. Claim 11 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 11 is directed to the method of claim 7, wherein said one or more plant seed is selected from the group consisting of dehydrins, protease inhibitors, hordeins, late-embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, cyclophilins, ABA-responsive proteins, globulins, albumins, prolamins, vicilins, glutelins, and zeins.
However, claim 7, from which claim 11 depends, already recites:
A method of cultivating cells for the production of cell culture meat, the method comprising:
a. providing at least one cell culture that is capable of growing to generate a meat-like tissue, and
b. supplying said at least one cell culture with a growth medium for sustaining growth and/or differentiation of said cell culture, characterised in that said growth medium comprises at least one growth factor composition that comprises one or more recombinant animal growth factor and one or more native plant seed protein selected from the group consisting of dehydrins, protease inhibitors, hordeins, late-embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins, cyclophilins, ABA-responsive proteins, globulins, prolamins, vicilins, glutelins, and zeins, wherein said growth factor is produced in a transgenic plant and the one or more native plant seed protein are native proteins from said transgenic plant.
Therefore, since claim 11 recites the same plant seed proteins as recited in claim 7, claim 11 fails to further limit claim 7.
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(a)
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.
7. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deeter et al. (WO 2007/002762 (cited on the IDS of 05 December 2022) or US 2010/0015713). It is noted that WO 2007/002762 and US 2010/0015713 have the same disclosure and thus, for brevity, relevant portions of the WO document will be cited. The basis for this rejection is set forth for claims 7-13 at pages 8-9 of the previous Office Action and is reiterated below for convenience.
Deeter et al. teach a method of culturing cells to achieve high growth rate and high productivity by culturing the cells with improved cell culture media, meeting the limitations of instant claims 7 and 9 (page 6, [0021]; page 1, [0003]; Examples 5, 6, 8, 9). In one example, Deeter et al. even state that, “plant derived recombinant human serum albumin can promote cell growth in serum-free media and replace animal derived albumin for use in tissue culture” (page 31, [0120]). Deeter et al. indicate that improved cell culture media comprises high-level expression of heterologous molecule components (page 17, [0077]).
Deeter et al. disclose that the cell culture media comprises at least one plant-produced heterologous protein as a cell culture media component, wherein the heterologous protein is produced by (a) transforming a plant cell with a chimeric gene comprising: (i) a promoter from the gene of a seed storage protein; (ii) a first DNA sequence, operably linked to the promoter, encoding a seed storage protein; and (iii) a second DNA sequence, operably linked to the promoter, encoding the heterologous protein, wherein the first and second DNA sequences are linked in translation frame and together encode a fusion protein comprising the storage protein and the heterologous protein; and (b) growing a plant from the transformed plant cell for a time sufficient to produce seeds containing the heterologous protein, meeting the limitations of instant claim 7 (page 5-6, [0012-0013]; page 17, [0077]; page 19, [0085]). Deeter et al. teach that the heterologous protein is harvested from the seeds (pages 19-20, [0085-0090]). Deeter et al. disclose that plant storage proteins include rice glutelins, oryzins, and prolamines; barley hordeins; wheat gliadins and glutelins; maize zeins and glutelins; oat glutelins; sorghum kafirins; millet pennisetins; and rye secalins, meeting the limitations of instant claim 11 (page 16, [0076]).
Deeter et al. state that the plant that is grown is a monocot plant, such as rice, barley, wheat, rye, corn millet, triticale, or sorghum, meeting the limitations of instant claim 13 (page 18, [0081]; page 21, [0091]).
Deeter et al. teach that the heterologous protein is a plant protein or a non-plant protein, preferably human, selected from the group consisting of growth factors, lactoferrin, transferrin, serum albumin, insulin, growth hormone, platelet derived growth factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, glial-derived neurotrophic factor, keratinocyte growth factors, insulin-like growth factors, intestinal trefoil factors, transforming growth factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, nerve growth factors, and fibroblast growth factors (among others), meeting the “recombinant animal growth factor” limitations of instant claims 7 and 12 (page 13, [0059]; page 18, [0081]).
Lastly, Deeter et al. disclose that culturing cells with cell culture media supplemented with plant-derived recombinant human lactoferrin at a concentration of 1 mg/ml (or 0.1 wt/v%) promotes cell growth and increases cell number, meeting the limitations of instant claims 8 and 10 (page 10, [0043]; page 27, [0112]; Figure 21).
(i) At the top of page 14 of the Response of 08 April 2026, Applicant argues that Deeter et al. has the same disclosure as Petit et al. (and belongs to the same assignee). Applicant contends that the disclosure of Deeter et al. shows the same functional differences. Applicant submits, for example, that Deeter et al. applies a transgenic seed storage protein which is expressed as a heterologous fusion protein of the transgenic seed storage protein and another heterologous protein (page 5). Applicant asserts that the use of seed storage proteins disclosed in Deeter et al. is exclusively in this form and that Deeter et al. do not disclose the limitations of claim 7 (wherein the one or more native plant seed protein are native proteins from said transgenic plant).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. First, it is noted that Deeter et al. and Petit et al. do not have the same disclosure.
Second, Deeter et al. teach that one embodiment involves high-level expression of heterologous molecules that are components of cell culture media (page 17, [0077]). Deeter et al. state that these components can be expressed in a plant cell by a chimeric gene comprising the gene(s) encoding the desired component operably linked with an endogenous plant protein encoding gene (page 17, [0077]). Deeter et al. disclose, for example, that the endogenous plant encoding gene is a rice seed storage protein gene for expression in a rice endogenous plant seed expression system (page 17, [0077]). Furthermore, Deeter et al. teach that the expressed polypeptide may be a multi-domain polypeptide with one domain being the heterologous or exogenous cell culture component and the other being the endogenous plant protein (page 17, [0078]). Thus, the disclosure of Deeter et al. clearly meets the limitations of amended claim 7 (wherein the growth factor composition recited in the cell culturing of step (b) comprises a recombinant animal growth factor (produced in a transgenic plant) and one or more native plant seed proteins that are native proteins from said transgenic plant).
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Erlendsson et al. Barley as a green factory for the production of functional Flt3 ligand. Biotechnol J 5: 163-171, 2010 (teach the generation of human Flt3 ligand from barley seeds; however, also disclose the removal of endogenous seed proteins (page 165, column 1 through the top of column 2)
Ovar et al. US 2007/0143872 (teach methods for increasing levels of heterologous proteins of interest in transgenic seeds, while suppressing the expression of transcription regulators of major storage protein genes (page 1; column 1; page 3, [0033])
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 BRIDGET E BUNNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Joanne Hama can be reached at (571) 272-2911. 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.
BEB
Art Unit 1647
29 May 2026
/BRIDGET E BUNNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1647
Prosecution Insights