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 I I in the reply filed on December 11, 2025 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-23 are pending of which c laim s 1, 2, 4-9 and 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Pending claims 10-12 and 14-17 have been examined on the merits. 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 14-17 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. Regarding claims 14-17, the “preferably” phrasing (in each of claims 14-16, similar to "for example" or “such as” phrasing) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims (clm. 10-12 and 14-17 ) are directed to a natural product (i.e., a law of nature/a natural phenomenon). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception – i.e., as drafted, the claims read upon a product of nature (i.e., a law of nature/a natural phenomenon) for the following reasons: Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are drawn to a composition (for the intended use as thymus regeneration) formed entirely from natural ingredients (as disclosed in the instant specification) and as evidenced by the cells being present in and isolatable from thymus tissue per se , thymic epithelial cells (TEC) ; and in some embodiments, further including medullary and/or cortical TEC ( mTEC and/or cTEC ), and thymic interstitial cells (e.g. see claims 10-12, 14), amounts thereof (clm . 15), and having populations of cells therein expressing natural antigens of CD49f+, and optionally further with one or more of V IM+, TE-7+ and CD90+ (clm. 16,17) . The claimed composition is not markedly different from its/their naturally-occurring counterpart(s) because there is no indication that the composition has any characteristics or properties that are different from the naturally-occurring counterpart(s) (including the cells, cell populations, and natural compounds found therein and/or obtainable therefrom ). The cited claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any additional elements. For example, as evidenced by Ragazzini R, et al., ( Developmental Cell , 20 Nov 2023, 58, pp. 2428–2446; doi : 10.1016/j.devcel.2023.08.017 ), CD49f+CD90+ cTEC and mTEC cell populations are isolatable from thymus ( see entire document, e.g. p 2436 left col.: “ Our previous data indicated that thymic clonogenic cells were included in the mTEC and cTEC populations that are CD49f pos … expressed by TECs in vivo and in vitro … population was CD49f high and CD90 high …[and] cortical … and medullary … cells were further subdivided based on the level of expression of CD49f, CD90, and CD24 ) . Furthermore, the claims do not integrate the composition into a distinguishing practical application (for example, do not broadly or specifically recite the various preferred modes of preparing the composition and the arrangements and material compositions of such resultant products alleged to have an improved therapeutic effect) , but merely recites the natural materials themselves or a multiplicity of natural materials . Please note, the optionally broad “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier” (see claims 12+), is not considered to further material distinguish the composition as it remains inclusive of the materials present in and among the natural materials themselves . Therefore, the claimed composition is not deemed to be markedly different from what exists in nature in terms of structural and/or functional differences. In other words, the claims do not set forth a marked difference in terms of structural and/or or functional differences (properties and/or characteristics) as compared to the naturally-occurring counterpart(s) (see, e.g., Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303(1980)). Please note that combining natural “ extracts ” (such as explanted materials obtained from two or more cellular/tissue samples ) does not remove the claims from reading upon a judicial selection ( Funk Brothers Seed Col. V. Kalo Inoclulant Col. – 333 U.S. 127 (1948)) because again there is no evidence of a marked difference brought about by combining the instantly claimed extracts. Please also note that modifying the concentration of the product/composition is not sufficient to remove the claimed composition from a judicial exception (see, e.g., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. , 569 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013) ). Thus, when the relevant factors are analyzed, they weigh against a significant difference between the claimed invention and a judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention is not considered to be patent eligible subject matter. 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. 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. Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asako Tajima, et al (“Construction of Thymus Organoids from Decellularized Thymus Scaffolds” Methods in Molecular Biology, 12 October 2016, 2019/1576, pp.33–42; DOI 10.1007/7651_2016_9; IDS) . The instant claims are drawn to a composition comprising thymic epithelial cells (TEC), optionally medullary ( mTEC ) and/or cortical ( cTEC ) populations thereof and/or thymic interstitial cells (e.g. see clm. 10-12, 14), amounts thereof (clm. 15), and having populations of cells therein expressing natural antigens thereof, of CD49f+ and optionally further with one or more of V IM+, TE-7+ and CD90+ (clm. 16,17) . Asako teaches in a “ tissue engineering approach, … have reconstructed thymus organoids by repopulating decellularized thymus scaffolds with isolated TECs ” and which functions to provide a “ thymus organoids [which] can support T-cell development both in vitro and in vivo. When transplanted … enable the generation of a diverse T-cell repertoire that help to reestablish T-cell mediated adaptive immuneresponses . ” ( Id. , at page 34; broadly a pharmaceutical composition comprising thymic epithelial cells having mesenchymal properties according to instant claims 10-12). Asako further appreciates that among thymic cells , that “ thymic epithelial cells (TECs) are the key population of residential stromal cells for the development of T-cells ” ( Id. , page 34). It would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention effective filing to have provided a thymic cell composition as instantly claimed, because the reference of Asako teaches that thymus-obtained, cellular materials reconstituted in organoids (broadly, a pharmaceutical composition comprising carrier/support/scaffold materials) were known in the art. Although not identical, the cited reference discloses a composition comprising thymic cell isolates, including TEC-containing materials providing and/or appearing to the requisite intrinsic functions of the instantly claimed composition, since it was isolated from the same source material (thymus, and which intrinsically contains the CD49f+, CD90+, VIM+, TE-7+ cell populations) and/or produces the same thymus regenerative therapeutic effect, as broadly claimed. One would have been motivated to have provided such a composition, because success merely requires providing such known thymic cellular materials (including isolation of thymic populations, e.g. as in Asako at §3.-3.5) , and for the same purpose known in the art, for thymic therapeutic in vitro or in vivo effects/ regeneration. Asako is relied upon for the is not identical to the referenced composition, with regard to some unidentified characteristics, the differences between that which is claimed and that which is disclosed, is so slight that the referenced composition is likely to inherently possess the same characteristics of the claimed composition, particularly in view of the similar characteristics which they have been shown to share (e.g. functioning as a thymus-/thymus-rejuvenating organoid ). Asako is also is relied upon for the reasons discussed above. If not expressly taught by the reference , based upon the overall beneficial teaching provided by this reference with respect to providing amounts of TEC cells from thymus in the manner disclosed therein, the adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining one or more suitable amounts, proportions, and populations from among the finite number of TEC cell populations obtainable therefrom in which to provide such a composition ), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effective filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Please note, since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ composition with the composition of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and “as a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith .” In re Brown , 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Relevant and Prior Art Made of Record The relevant and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including the following: Ragazzini R, et al., “ Defining the Identity and the Niches of Epithelial Stem Cells with Highly Pleiotropic Multilineage Potency in the Human Thymus ”, Developmental Cell , 20 Nov 2023, 58, pp. 2428–2446; doi : 10.1016/j.devcel.2023.08.01 7). – The cited reference is not prior art, however is relevant to the state of the art and evidencing isolation from thymus cTEC and mTEC populations which contain CD49 f + CD90 + (“ CD49F high CD90 high ” ; see entire document, e.g. Supplemental Content, esp. Fig S4 (A-C)). Conclusion No claims are presently allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AARON J KOSAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3054 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon.-Fri. 9-6 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 Anand Desai can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0947 . 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. /AARON J KOSAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655