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. Claim status In the reply on 02 February 2026 Applicant has amended claim 80 . Claim s 1-79, 81-86 have been cancelled and added new claims 87-105 . Therefore, claims 80, and 87-105 are herein pending. Election /Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 3: claim 80, which is drawn to a method of modifying an acceptor cell or making a modified cell in the reply filed on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. The new claims 87-105 are within the scope of the elected invention. Applicant has cancelled non-elected claims 1-79 and 81-86 of Groups1-2 and 4 on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, c laims 80, and 87-105 are under current examination. Priority This application was filed 12/17/2022 and is a 371 application of PCT/US2021/038087 filed on 06/18/2021 , which claims benefit to the Provisional Application 63040860 filed on 06/18/2020 . Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 06/18/2020 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2023, 02/02/2026 are i n compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and the signed and initialed PTO Forms 1449 are mailed with this action. Abstract Objection The abstract of the disclosure filed 12/16/2022 is objected to because the abstract is only 15 words in length. Therefore, submitted abstract is considered non-compliant. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. MPEP §608.01(b) states that the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length . The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Therefore, appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 80, 87-88, 91, 97 and 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanja et al., ( EP2876441B1; Pub. Date: 25 Oct. 2017; cited in IDS filed 06/12/2023; hereinafter “Tanja”) . Regarding claims 80, 87-88 , 97 and 98 Tanja discloses a method of modifying acceptor cell comprising contacting said culturing the donor cells and acceptor cells in a culture medium in the presence of a substrate for a first period of time to allow donor and acceptor cells to attach to said substrate [0006], [0012] , wherein at least one of the membrane-associated moiety, extracellular moiety, intracellular moiety, or the cargo molecule is exogenous to the plurality of donor cells (in one of the examples donor cells were transfected with the transferrin receptor- mCherry (transferrin receptor which are extracellular moiety is exogenously introduced to the donor cell) and in another example donor cells were transfected with proteins (proteins are membrane associated moiety which is exogenously introduced to the donor cell); paragraph [0048], [0080], [0105], Fig. 13B, C). Therefore, POSITA would have been anticipating at the time of the Tanji’s invention the membrane associated moiety presence in different level than donor cell , accordingly, POSITA could anticipate after contact a detectable amount of the membrane-associated agent (at least 1%) increase in the acceptor cell s (Figs. 19 A-B). Furthermore, Tanja discloses the composition comprising a plurality of donor cells, the plurality of donor cells comprising a membrane-associated agent , the agent comprising: a membrane- associated moiety, and one or both of an extracellular moiety or an intracellular moiety (donor cells containing one more traceable substances are provided in the invention wherein traceable substance adhere to the external plasma membrane (traceable substance are the membrane associated extracellular moieties which can be selected from the group consisting of cell vesicles, protein aggregates, mRNA, microRNA, DNA, or nanoparticles); ([0006], [0012], [0031 ] -[0032] ), and a cargo molecule, wherein the membrane-associated agent and the cargo molecule are configured to be transferred to an acceptor cell; wherein at least one of the membrane-associated moiety, extracellular moiety, intracellular moiety, or the cargo molecule is exogenous to the plurality of donor cells [0048], [0080], [0105], and wherein the plurality of donor cells transfers a detectable amount or a biologically effective amount of the membrane-associated agent and/or the cargo molecule to a plurality of acceptor cells [0006]. Regarding claim 9 1 , Tanja teaches that the plurality of donor cells is stimulated (treated with proliferation inhibitor) prior to the contacting step [0039]. Accordingly, Tanja anticipates the instant claims 80, 87-88, 91, 97 and 98. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 80, and 87-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanja et al., (EP2876441B1; Pub. Date: 25 Oct. 2017; cited in IDS filed 06/12/2023; hereinafter “Tanja” ), in view of Lim et al., ( US2019/0202918A1 , Pub. Date: Jul. 4, 2019; cited in IDS filed 06/12/2023; hereinafter “Lim” ) in combination with Maltzahn et al. (WO 2020/102578; Pub. Date: May 22, 2020; cited in IDS filed 06/12/2023; hereinafter “ Maltzahn ”) . As discussed previously, regarding claims 80, 87-88, 91, 97 and 98, Tanja discloses a method of modifying an acceptor cell c omp rising contacting the acceptor with a composition comprising a plurality of donor cells under conditions suitable for transfer of membrane-associated agent and/or cargo molecule to the acceptor cell . 3342467 237779 Fig. 1 of Lim 40000 0 Fig. 1 of Lim With respect to claims 89 , Tanja does not disclose the protease cleavage site recognized by the protease. However, such was known in the prior art. Regarding claims 89-90 and 96, Lim et al. disclose the ability to affect cellular signaling through recognition of a peptide-MHC by a cleavable chimeric Notch polypeptide , wherein the membrane-associated moiety or intracellular moiety comprises a protease cleavage site (abstract, [0009], [0246-0247]. As diagramed in F ig . 1, u pon binding of the “sender cell” and “receiver cell”, the cleavable Notch polypeptide is cleaved releasing the intracellular portion which can affect intracellular processes including e.g., the expression of a transgene (e.g., "X" in FIG. 1) operatively linked to a promoter that is responsive to the freed intracellular domain [0390]. Therefore, the membrane-associated moiety or intracellular moiety comprises a protease cleavage site recognized by a protease that is not expressed in the plurality of donor cells (chimeric polypeptide (membrane associated moiety) of sender cells (donor cells) includes cleavable notch receptor polypeptide which comprises protease cleavage site which gets cleaved by the protease at c-terminal end; paragraph ([ 0009 ] , [0246 ] , [ 0390] ) . MPEP 2143 (A) states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 . Accordingly, i t would have been obvious to POSITA at the time of the filling to combine the Tanja invention to recognize the protease cleavage site present in the donor cell to be recognized by the protease as taught by Lim in order to modulate various cellular processes following a cleavage event [0421]. Regarding claims 92-93, Lim discloses wherein the extracellular moiety comprises a targeting domain that binds to a first target cell moiety and a second target cell moiety and wherein the acceptor cell comprises the first target cell moiety or the second target cell moiety but not both (chimeric polypeptides is designed that include a cleavable notch polypeptide linked to an extracellular domain that includes a specific binding member that specifically binds to a peptide-MHC of an intracellular antigen of a sender cell (donor cell) wherein the extracellular domain of a chimeric polypeptide expressed by a receiver cell (target cell) binds the peptide-MHC of the sender cell (donor cell); paragraph [0390], figure1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Tanja invention to incorporate the cargo molecule in the composition and to disclose the binding of an extracellular moiety with the target domain as taught by Lim in order to study the binding between the extracellular moiety of the donor cell to that of the target cell receptors. With respect to claims 94 , Lim does not disclose expression of nucleic acid in the acceptor cell. However, such was known in the prior art. Regarding claims 94-95 and 103-105, Maltzahn disclose the method comprises delivering fusosomes and their use to deliver membrane proteins to target cells (acceptor cells), wherein the fusosome comprises a lipid bilayer, and a cargo comprise a protein or nucleic acid encoding the protein such that target cell produces that protein and localizes it to the membrane protein (p. 1 Summary ¶) , wherein the acceptor cells do not substantially express a nucleic acid encoding the membrane-associated agent ( [ 000 3 7 6 ] , [000 421 ] of Maltzahn ) or, if a cargo molecule is present in acceptor cells , do not substantially express a nucleic acid encoding the cargo molecule . Furthermore, Maltzahn disclose fusosomes (e.g., donor cells) are autologous and/or allogeneic to the acceptor cell ([00052], [000128], p. 70 see 196¶, p. 1491 st ¶). MPEP 2143 (A) states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 . It would have been obvious to POSITA at the time of the invention to include the Tanja invention to transfer the nucleic acid or membrane associated agent by means of a cargo molecule as taught by Maltzahn in order to transiently modify gene expression in the target cell or to modify the expression of the membrane protein in the target cell (p. 493 Example 55, [000186], [000331] of Maltzahn ) . Regarding claim 99 , Lim disclose that the ability to affect cellular signaling through recognition of a peptide-MHC by a cleavable chimeric Notch polypeptide , wherein the membrane-associated moiety or intracellular moiety comprises a protease cleavage site (abstract, [0009], [0246-0247], Fig. 1). Lim’s method generally involves contacting the cell with the binding partner of the specific binding member of a chimeric polypeptide of the present disclosure. Such binding induces cleavage of the Notch receptor polypeptide at the one or more proteolytic cleavage sites, thereby releasing the intracellular domain Release of the intracellular domain may modulate an activity of the cell, e.g., induce expression of a heterologous gene or coding sequence ( [0332]-[0333] of Lim) . Therefore, Lim’s modulating a level or activity of a molecule in the acceptor cell or the plurality of acceptor cells; modulating enzyme activity in the acceptor cell or the plurality of acceptor cells; modulating a genetic or an epigenetic event in the acceptor cell or the plurality of acceptor cells; modulating acceptor cell differentiation; modulating acceptor cell reprogramming; activating a signaling pathway in the acceptor cell; and modifying cell adhesion and trafficking and modifying cell adhesion and trafficking ( [0112]- [011 5 ] of Lim) . Regarding claim 100 , Lim disclose that the membrane-associated moiety is a transmembrane moiety that comprises a transmembrane domain from a receptor (i.e., Notch receptor) ( [0187], [0208], [0301] of Lim) . Regarding claim 101 , Lim disclose that the membrane-associated agent comprises the extracellular moiety, and the extracellular moiety comprises a targeting domain or a transfer promoting moiety ([0348], [0350] of Lim). Regarding claim 102 , Lim disclose that the membrane-associated agent comprises the intracellular moiety, and the intracellular moiety comprises a protein binding domain [0252]-[0255]. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969). The invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as evidenced by the teachings of Tanja et al. in view of Lim in combination with Maltzahn especially in the absence of unexpected results. Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary . Pertinent References The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following: Alegre et al., ( Cell research, 20(11), pp.1239-1251 , 2010; cited in PTO892) . provides methods for Trogocytic exchanges between different cell types, mainly in two-cell systems, involving one donor and one acceptor cell type (abstract) and indicate that trogocytosis could play an important role in the immune response through the spreading of membrane-associated proteins such as HLA-G, or through the influence of the surrounding non-immune cells on immune cells (p. 1248 left-hand col. 3 rd ¶) . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Examiner Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MASUDUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0196 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 (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, Christopher Babic can be reached on (571) 272-8507 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT . 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. /MASUDUR RAHMAN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1633 /JEREMY C FLINDERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684