DETAILED ACTION This action is in reply to papers filed 1/19/2026. 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. Examiner’s Note All paragraph numbers throughout this office action, unless otherwise noted, are from the US PGPub of this application US20230091040A1 , Published 11/30/2022 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 16-20) in the reply filed on 1/19/2026 is acknowledged. Group II, claims 10-15, are canceled. Claims 21-26 are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 16-2 6 are pending and examined herein. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the phrase “forms part of a” twice. Also note that there is a ‘the’ missing after the comma and before the term ‘substrate’. Appropriate correction is required. 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 25 is 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 25 refers to the bioreactor of claim 25. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because claim 25 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5, 7- 8, 16, 2 0 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruglick , E. ( PgPub US20130323841A1 , Published 12/5/2013). Claim interpretation: The preamble of claim 1 recites a substrate for growing a comestible meat product. This is an intended use of the substrate. MPEP 2111.02 (II) states that i f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. As such, the preamble of instant claim 1 is not considered a structural limitation. The preamble of claim 16 is similarly interpreted. Prior Art Rejection 1 Kruglick discloses a bioreactor (as in claim 16 , in-part and claim 26 ) for adherent cells, the bioreactor comprising an elastic support (i.e. a substrate) having a first surface and a second opposite surface (Pg. 2, para. 21) . Kruglick discloses the bioreactor comprises a plurality of elastic supports arranged in paralle l ( as further in claim 16 , in-part ) (Pg. 9 , para. 88) . Kruglick discloses t he first surface includes one or more textured surface portions (~ the first surface comprises a first region comprising a first texture and a second region comprising a second texture (as in claim 1 , in-part and claim 16 , in-part)) (Pg. 2 , para. 20) . Kruglick discloses the textured surface is designed to encourage or enhance cell adhesion wherein the cells are grown as a cell layer ( as in claim 4 ) (Pg. 2 , para. 19, Pg. 8 , para. 67 ) . Kruglick discloses s ome areas of first surface ( ~ the first surface comprising a first region comprising a first texture and a second region comprising a second texture ) ) may be non-textured (~ region devoid of a patterned texture) (as in claim 5 ) and/or less-textured (~ first region comprising a first texture (as further in claim 1 and claim 16 and as in claim 2 and claim 20 )) (Pg. 4, para. 38) . Note the Examiner is interpreting the more textured area of the first surface to a be a second region. Kruglick discloses s ome textured surface portions may have a hydrophobic coating and/or a hydrophilic coating. (as in claim 8 ) (Pg. 2 , para. 20) . Kruglick discloses the textured surface may have features including but not limited to ridges, grooves, spheres, pores/channels, and/or protrusions in any shape ( as in claim 7, claim 24, claim 25 ) (Pg. 4 , para. 39) . Kruglick discloses textured surface portions may be dispersed along substantially all of first surface (Pg. 7 , para. 63) . A dispersed first and second textured portions would necessarily have overlapping textured regions (as in claim 3 ) . Accordingly, Kruglick anticipates the claimed invention. 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. The factual inquiries 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. Prior Art Rejection 2 Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick , E. ( PgPub US20130323841A1 , Published 12/5/2013) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 16, 20 and 24-26 and 24-26 a bove a nd further in view of Feinberg et al. ( PgPub US20100196432A1 , Published 8/5/2010). The teachings of Kruglick is relied upon as detailed above. However, Kruglick fails to teach the substrate forms part of a three-dimensional lattice of substrates (as in claim 9 and 18). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Feinberg et al. teach b iopolymer structures that are spatially organized from the nanometer to centimeter length scales and that incorporate living active cells . Feinberg teaches stacking a plurality biopolymer structures to produce a multi-layer scaffold (as in claim 9 and claim 18 ). Feinberg teaches growing the living cells in the scaffold to produce consumable meat or produce with an engineered composition (Abstract; Pg. 2 , para. 14). The combination of prior art cited above in all rejections under 35 U.S.C.103 satisfies the factual inquiries as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966). Once this has been accomplished the holdings in KSR can be applied (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 389, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007): "Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention." In the present situation, rationales A and G are applicable. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Kruglick , wherein Kruglick teaches a cell adherent surface having a first region textural adhesion portion and a second region textural adhesion portion, with the teachings of Feinberg et al., wherein Feinberg teaches stacking a plurality structures to produce a multi-layer scaffold. That is, in order to produce a multi-layered tissue, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to stack, as taught in Feinberg, the cell adherent surfaces of Kruglick . The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do in order for application such as growing meat or an engineered composition. Thus, the teachings of the cited prior art in the obviousness rejection above provide the requisite teachings and motivations with a clear, reasonable expectation. The cited prior art meets the criteria set forth in both Graham and KSR. Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, was clearly prima facie obvious . Prior Art Rejection 3 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick , E. ( PgPub US20130323841A1 , Published 12/5/2013) a s applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 16, 20 and 24-26 above a nd further in view of Feinberg et al. ( PgPub US 20100330644 A1 , Published 12/30 /2010 , herein referred to as Feinberg (b) ). The teachings of Kruglick is relied upon as detailed above. However, Kruglick fails to teach the first texture and the second texture are configured to promote adhesion of a comestible meat product on a given substrate (as in claim 17). Feinberg (b) is drawn to the arrangement of one or more cells in a medium or on a substrate through the use of boundary conditions (Abstract) , wherein said boundary conditions are surface features of the substrate (Pg. 1 , para. 10 ; Pg. 5, para. 46 ). In one embodiment, Feinberg teaches the use of boundary conditions allows engineered myocardium to be created (~growth of non-human meat cells on a given substrate) (as in claim 17 ) with contractile force that matches wild-type (natural) muscle in the case of the anisotropic condition or exceeds wild-type (natural) muscle in the case of the lines condition (Pg. 21, para. 190) . When taken with the teachings of Kruglick et al., wherein Kruglick teaches a substrate having one or more textured surface portions for adhering cells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to substitute the generic texture of Kruglick for th e muscle adherent textured surface of Feinberg (b). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Kruglick noted that muscle cells require different mechanical environments for proper growth ( see Kruglick at Pg. 2-3, para. 18). Thus, in view of Feinberg’s success in deriving muscle that matches natural muscle, the substitution would have been prima facie obvious. Prior Art Rejection 4 Claim s 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick , E. ( PgPub US20130323841A1 , Published 12/5/2013) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 16, 20 and 24-26 above . The teachings of Kruglick is relied upon as detailed above. And although Kruglick does not teach configuring the substrate to direct fluid to aid in fluidic detachment of the comestible meat product from the plurality of substrates or directing fluid to separate tissue growing on each substrate of the plurality of substrates by directing a flow of the fluid in a direction from the first region to the second region , Kruglick does teach allowing cells to at least partially adhere to a surface of an elastic support in a cell culture vessel, and altering the configuration of the elastic support to detach the cells from the elastic support. Kruglick explains that a ltering the configuration of the elastic support includes inflating and/or deflating the elastic support , wherein t he elastic support is inflated and/or deflated with a fluid (Pg. 2, para. 22) . In this regard, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fluid to detach the cells in the first region first. The skilled artisan would have found this prima facie obvious to do because the cells in the second region are more adhered to the surface than the cells in the first region. Therefore, a fluid pressure that detach es less adhered cells on a surface (~ first region) would not detach the more adhered cells on a surface (~ second region). At the same time, a fluid pressure that detaches more adhered cells on a surface (~ second region) would detach the less adhered cells on a surface (~ first region). Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, was clearly prima facie obvious . Prior Art Rejection 5 Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick , E. ( PgPub US20130323841A1 , Published 12/5/2013) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 16, 20 and 24-26 above and further in view of More, R. ( PgPub US20050095711A1 , Published 5/5/2005). The teachings of Kruglick is relied upon as detailed above. However, Kruglick fails to teach the bioreactor is a scalable parallel-plate bioreactor (as in claim 22). Before the effective filing date, More teaches a b ioreactor and a method for growing engineered tissue provide facing surfaces in a vessel for containing cell-culture media (Abstract) . More teaches the bioreactor comprises a vessel for containing cell-culture media, a pair of approximately parallel, approximately equidistant, plates (as in claim 22 ) (Pg. 2, para. 20) which define a gap and provide substrates for cell tissue growth to occur within such gap, means for maintaining conditions within said vessel conducive to cell tissue growth, and means for moving said plates relative to one another within media supplied to said vessel so as to subject tissue growing upon and between the surfaces to physiological flow and to shear stress ( Pg. 1, para. 7 ). When taken with the teachings of Kruglick et al., wherein Kruglick teaches a bioreactor comprising a substrate having one or more textured surface portions for adhering cells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to substitute the generic bioreactor of Kruglick for the parallel plate bioreactor of More because More specifically notes that parallel plate bioreactors encourage cells cultured therein to align with flow. Thus, for the purposes of aligning the cells in the support of Kruglick , the substitution would have been prima facie obvious. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . NSDP Rejection 1 Claim s 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11357244 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons: Instant claims are drawn to a substrate for growing a comestible meat product, comprising: a first region comprising a first texture with a first textural adhesion; and a second region comprising a second texture with a second textural adhesion; wherein the second textural adhesion is greater than the first textural adhesion. Claim 16 is drawn to a bioreactor comprising a plurality of the substrates. Claim 19 is drawn to t he first texture and the second texture are configured to aid in fluidic detachment of the comestible meat product from the plurality of substrates. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘244 is drawn to a method of preparing a comestible meat product, comprising: applying a plurality of non-human cells comprising at least one muscle-derived cell and one or more additional cells, at any state of differentiation, from at least one of myoblasts, mesoangioblasts , myofibroblasts, myotubes, mesenchymal stem cells, hepatocytes, fibroblasts, pericytes, adipocytes, adipose tissue, epithelial, chondrocytes, osteoblasts, osteoclasts, pluripotent cells, somatic stem cells, endothelial cells, epithelial tissue, vascular endothelium, or contractile cells, to a patterned texture substrate comprising a first patterned texture region and a second patterned texture region, wherein a texture of the first patterned texture region differs from a texture of the second patterned texture region; directing a cell culture medium continuously at a first fluid flow rate across or adjacent to the patterned texture substrate; growing the plurality of non-human cells on the patterned texture substrate to form the comestible meat product; and separating the comestible meat product from the patterned texture substrate. Claim 4 is drawn the method of claim 1, further comprising positioning the patterned texture substrate in a bioreactor. The substrate of instant application is required for the method of preparing the comestible meat product of U.S. Patent ‘244. NSDP Rejection 2 Claims 1- 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11559073 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons: Instant claims are drawn to a substrate for growing a comestible meat product, comprising: a first region comprising a first texture with a first textural adhesion; and a second region comprising a second texture with a second textural adhesion; wherein the second textural adhesion is greater than the first textural adhesion. Claim 6 is drawn to wherein the first texture and the second texture form a textural adhesion gradient featuring stronger adhesion near a first end of the substrate and progressively weaker adhesion towards a second end of the substrate. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘073 is drawn to a substrate for growing a comestible meat product, comprising: a surface having a first region proximate a first end, a second region proximate a second end, and an intermediate region between the first region and the second region; wherein the first region has a surface texture with a textural adhesion gradient featuring stronger adhesion near the first end and progressively weaker adhesion towards the intermediate region; and wherein the second region has a non-textured surface. It is clear that all of the elements of the instant application claims are to be found in the patent claims. The difference between the application claim s and the patent claim s lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. For example, patent claims require a region that is not textured. Thus the invention of claim s of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim s . It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman , 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim s is anticipated by claim s of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim s of the patent. NSDP Rejection 3 Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 1155907 2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons: Instant claims are drawn to a substrate for growing a comestible meat product, comprising: a first region comprising a first texture with a first textural adhesion; and a second region comprising a second texture with a second textural adhesion; wherein the second textural adhesion is greater than the first textural adhesion. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘072 is drawn to a method of preparing a comestible meat product, comprising: applying a plurality of non-human cells comprising at least one muscle-derived cell and one or more additional cells, at any state of differentiation, from at least one of myoblasts, mesoangioblasts , myofibroblasts, myotubes, mesenchymal stem cells, hepatocytes, fibroblasts, pericytes, adipocytes, adipose tissue, epithelial, chondrocytes, osteoblasts, osteoclasts, pluripotent cells, somatic stem cells, endothelial cells, epithelial tissue, vascular endothelium, or contractile cells to a solid patterned texture substrate comprising a first patterned texture region and a second patterned texture region, wherein a texture of the first patterned texture region differs from a texture of the second patterned texture region; growing the plurality of non-human cells on the solid patterned texture substrate to form the comestible meat product; and separating the comestible meat product from the solid patterned texture substrate. Claim 8 is drawn to wherein the first patterned texture region is less adherent than the second patterned texture region. The substrate of instant application is required for the method of preparing the comestible meat product of U.S. Patent ‘072. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 23 are 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. Authorization to Initiate Electronic Communications The examiner may not initiate communications via electronic mail unless and until applicants authorize such communications in writing within the official record of the patent application. See M.P.E.P. § 502.03, part II. If not already provided , Applicants may wish to consider supplying such written authorization in response to this Office action, as negotiations toward allowability are more easily conducted via e-mail than by facsimile transmission (the PTO's default electronic-communication method). A sample authorization is available at § 502.03, part II. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TITILAYO MOLOYE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1094 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Working Hours: 5:30 a.m-3:00 p.m. M-F. Off first Friday of biweek . . 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 Peter Paras can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571- 272-4517 . 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. /TITILAYO MOLOYE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632