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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 are amended and claim 5 is cancelled. Claim 14 is added. Claims 1-4, 6-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3 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 1 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The body of the claim does not commensurate in scope with the preamble. The preamble states “ forming a nanofilm layer”; however, the body of the claim does not recite any step in which nanofilm layer is formed. The step of “ forming crosslinking in the nanofilm layer” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what this step pertaining to because there is no step of forming nanofilm layer. The claim only recites “ coating surfaces of cells”. It’s not clear what is being crosslinked or what is encompassed in crosslinking in the nanofilm layer because there is no recitation of actually forming a film. There is no recitation of ingredients in the nanofilm; it’s not clear what crosslinking even encompasses.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite. It’s not clear if the multilayer nanofilm in the claim is the same as claim 1 and that the bonding is the crosslinking or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vein ( WO 2006/041429) in view of Hong ( KR 102066258B1).
For claims 1,2, 12 Vein discloses a method for producing tissue engineered meat. The method comprises the steps of culturing muscle stem cells in vitro and allowing these to differentiate into specific types of muscle cells ( the step are equivalent to the claimed performing differentiation of cultured cells and muscle tissue is formed because differentiation and forming muscle cells are formed). For claim 2, the cells are pluripotent embryonic mesenchymal stem cells. For claim 13, Vein discloses tissue engineered meat obtained from the method. Tissue engineered meat is the same as the claimed cultured meat because it is obtained from cultured cells. Also, the claim does not define what constitutes cultured meat. ( see paragraphs 0009, 0011)
For claim 9, Vein discloses that muscle cells may be grown in culture into muscle tissue that are attached to a support structure such as two or three dimensional scaffold. For scaled up production, the preferred method is to use a bioreactor. ( see paragraphs 0012, 0015)
For claim 10, Vein discloses exposing the muscle cells to an electric or oscillating current to minic exercise and increase the similarity in texture between meat grown ex vivo and meat derived from whole animals. ( see paragraph 0019)
For claim 11, Vein discloses adding fat cells to muscle cells. Also, Vein discloses adding vitamins to increase nutritional value of the engineered meat. Spice and seasoning can be added to make different derivatives of meat products. ( see paragraphs 0016,0020, 0022)
For claim 13, Vein discloses the tissue engineered meat can be used to make derivatives of meat products such as meatballs, fishballs, hamburger patties etc.. Thus, the engineered meat is used to substitute for beef, fish etc.. ( see paragraph 0022)
Vein does not disclose coating surfaces of cells and forming crosslinking as in claim 1, the coating as in claim 3, the material as in claims 4-7 , the thickness as in claim 8 and adding a colorant as in claim 11.
Hong discloses a coating method for the cross-assembly of a first solution containing a positively charged material and a second solution containing negatively charged material on the surface of stem cells. The coating contains protein kinase inhibitor( ROCK) which gives faster cell growth and minimizing damage caused by induced stem cells in the coating process of the multi-layer nanofilm. The inhibitor is considered a cell growth factor. The coating is done by stacking a positively charged material and a negatively charged material. The positively charged material includes fibrinogen, silk fibroin, casein, elastin etc.. The negatively charged material includes cellulose, heparin, dextran sulfate, etc… The coating is a cross-linked complex. The nano-film promote cell mass formation by strengthening intercellular attraction when induced stem cells form a culture. Since the same material is used in the same type of coating, it’s obvious the same type of bonding in claim 3 is present.
Vein discloses growing stem cell and attaching to a support structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hong to coat the cells to protect them, to minimize damage and enhance growth during processing steps to make the tissue engineered meat. Vein discloses ingredients can be added to the culture medium; thus, the addition would not be contraindicated. The nanofilm layer in Hong is a crosslinked complex. Thus, crosslinking is performed. Claim 1 does not define any specific parameter to the crosslinking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the layers and thickness depending on the degree of protection desired. Furthermore, since Hong discloses nanofilm layer, it’s obviously inherent that the thickness is within the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a colorant when desiring to make product resembling actual meat obtained from animal. Such parameter would have been within the skill of one in the art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vein in view of Hong as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13 above, and further in view of Zhao ( 2016) and Elfenbein ( WO 2020123876).
Zhao discloses nano-cellulose coating. The coating is useful for forming edible coatings/films on plant parts and other objects. The composition comprises crosslinking agent. The crosslinking links at least two molecules through chemical bond. ( see paragraphs 0068-0069,0073,0079,0132)
Elfenbein discloses synthetic food compositions including cultured food products such as meat products, sushi grade fish meat etc.. Elfenbein teaches to use crosslinking agent to strength the connection between the fibers formed from solution containing gelatin, collagen and cellulose. ( see paragraph 0390)
It’s known in the art to use crosslinking agent to reinforce bonding between ingredients as shown in Zhao and Elfenbein. It’s would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use crosslinking agent to further strengthen the crosslinked complex taught in Hong to enhance the structural integrity of the film to promote the growth of the cells. Using an ingredient for its art-recognized function would have been within the skill of one in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues Hong does not disclose the step of forming crosslinking in a nanofilm layer. This argument is not persuasive. Hong discloses forming multi-layer nanofilm in which fibronectin and chondroitin sulfate are cross-laminated. This is considered crosslinking; thus, Hong teaches forming crosslinking in the nanofilm film layer. Claim 1 does not have any parameter defining crosslinking or any parameter on the nanolayer film. Applicant argues that the method of forming crosslinking in the nanofilm layer is different from the method of cross-laminating in Hong. This argument is not persuasive because there is no step defining the difference. In fact, claim 4 recites nanofilm layer formed by alternately stacking a positively charged material and a negatively charged material. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which would include the crosslinking. There is no difference in the claimed crosslinking versus the one disclosed in Hong. New prior art is added to address new claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
February 3, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793