DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 6/6/2023 are acknowledged. Claims 40-55 and 59 are pending. Claims 1-39 and 56-58 are cancelled. Prosecution on the merits commences for claims 40-55 and 59. PRIORITY The instant application, filed 3/27/2023 is a DIVISIONAL of US Patent No. 11,648,280, filed 12/21/2018 which is a DIVISIONAL of US Patent No. 10,188,683, filed 02/18/2015, which is a CONTINUATION of US Application No. 13/146,605 (abandoned), filed 10/10/2011, which is a 371 of PCT/US2010/023213, filed 02/04/2010, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 61/206,799, filed 02/04/2009. Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 2/04/2009. Drawings The drawings of 3/27/2023 are objected to because the electronic file of record 3/27/23 provides the figures with color drawings/photographs. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). In addition, the drawings of 3/27/2 02 3 are not in accordance with the requirements of 35 USC 1.84 (I) and (p), which requires all drawings must be legible for reproduction: 35 USC 1.84 (I): Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 35 USC 1.84 (p)(1) and (3): Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible; and Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. FIGs 15A, 15B, 17B, 63A, 63B, and 63C has text which is not legible. Some of the text is too small to be sufficiently reproducible, and is not legible. Applicant should review EACH drawing of record and ensure the text conform to the requirements of 35 USC 1.84 (p)(1) and (3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. CLAIMS Independent claims 40, 50 and 59 are generally directed to compositions and methods of making and using decellularized tissue: Claim 40: A method for making an engineered three dimensional tissue capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung cell, said method comprising seeding a decellularized scaffold with a population of cells to produce a seeded scaffold. Claim 50: An in vitro method for screening a test agent for the ability of said test agent to modulate the health of a lung tissue, said method comprising contacting said test agent to an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model and measuring the effect said test agent has on said model, wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue. Claim 59: An implantable composition comprising a decellularized tissue capable of supporting cell growth, wherein the decellularized tissue exhibits a characteristic of a corresponding natural tissue prior to decellularization. The phrase “a characteristic of a corresponding natural tissue prior to decellularization” is not defined in the specification. Paragraph [0160] teaches, “In one embodiment, the decellularized lung retains several key characteristics of normal lung matrix. For example, the decellularized lung comprises at least one or more of collagen, elastin, fibronectin, and proteoglycan”. Thus, art that discloses a decellularized tissue that comprises at least one or more of collagen, elastin, fibronectin, and proteoglycan fulfills the requirements of claim 59. Claim Objections Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 54 is missing a comma after “claim 50” in line 1 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) - indefinite 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 applicant regards as his invention. Clai m s 47-48 and 51 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 47 recites, “The method of claim 40, comprising cells that exhibit….” Which is unclear. Claim 40 requires seeding a decellularized scaffold with “a population of cells” in line 3. It is not clear whether the “cells” of claim 47 are referring to the cells already recited in claim 40, or if the cells of claim 47 are in addition to the cells of claim 40? For example, is the claim trying to encompass “wherein the population of cells comprise cells that exhibit…” Or, is the claim trying to encompass, “wherein the method comprises seeding the scaffold with an additional population of cells, wherein the additional population of cells comprise cell that exhibit…” This is an antecedent basis rejection. A skilled artisan would not know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim 48 recites the limitation " said gene " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 51 recites the limitation "said engineered three dimensional tissue" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 50, upon which claim 51 depends recites, “an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model.” 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 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. C laim 50 recite s : An in vitro method for screening a test agent for the ability of said test agent to modulate the health of a lung tissue, said method comprising contacting said test agent to an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model and measuring the effect said test agent has on said model, wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue.” The test for 101 eligibility of judicial exceptions can be found at MPEP 2106: “First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.” “Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013).” “The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test, is discussed in further detail in subsection III, below. The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). Id. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The Supreme Court has described the second part of the test as the "search for an 'inventive concept'". Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).” Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the following steps outlined in a flow chart at MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A): Step 1: is the Claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? If Yes, proceed to Step 2A; Step 2A, prong one: Is the Claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea? If Yes, proceed to Step 2A, prong two; Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If No, proceed to Step 2B; Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more (an inventive concept) than the judicial exception? If No, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. With regard to Step 1: the claim is directed to a method. With regard to Step 2A, prong one: YES, the claim is directed to a mental process (abstract idea): The claim recites limitations screening a test agent in an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model “for the ability of said test agent to modulate the health of a lung tissue” wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue . The claim thus requires comparing some change in the lung tissue model after administering the test agent to the untested lung tissue model. It is apparent the step of comparing could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the st e p “ wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue ” can be practically and wholly performed by the human mind. With regard to Step 2A, prong two: Yes , the claim include s two additional steps: “contacting said test agent to an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model” and “measuring the effect said test agent has on said model.” However, these steps are recited at a high level of generality, and merely instructs a scientist performing the process to use any techniques one wishes to use to detect any alteration. When recited at this high level of generality, there is nothing in th ese step s that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine and conventional activity engaged in by scientists at the time the invention was made and the application was filed. These steps impose no limits on how the comparison is performed. With regard to Step 2B: No, the claim does not provide any additional elements, and thus does not provide an inventive concept. Taken together, the claim encompasses a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not encompass/claim any additional elements other than “contacting said test agent to an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model” and “measuring the effect said test agent has on said model.” Claims 51-55 are included in the rejection because they encompass embodiments and/or steps at a high level, there is nothing in these steps that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine and conventional activity engaged in by scientists at the time the invention was made and the application was filed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claim 59 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO02/14480, 87 pages, to Mitchell. With regard to claim 59, Mitchell discloses implantable decellularized tissue constructs which consist largely of extracellular matrix components , such as collagen and elastin (Abstract, page s 6-7 , 36- 37 of 87 ) . The implantable decellularized tissue constructs can be derived from native tissue (pages 27 , 39-40 of 87, Example 5). The implantable decellularized tissue constructs are capable of supporting cell growth, and can be seeded before implantation or in vivo after implantation (page 8 of 87). As such, Mitchell discloses the implantable decellularized tissue constructs are capable of supporting cell growth and exhibit a characteristic of a corresponding natural tissue prior to decellularization , and anticipates claim 59. Claims 40-42, 45-46 and 59 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by WO2007/025233 to Ott, of record, listed in Applicant’s IDS dated 5 / 18 /20 23 . With regard to claim s 40 and 59 , Ott discloses methods and materials to decellularize solid organs and recellularize them to generate a solid organ (Abstract). Ott discloses that the process results in an intact extracellular matrix, including collagen, elastin, fibronectin (page 6, lines 22-28). Ott discloses that the solid organ is a decellularized lung, which showed intact collagen, elastin and proteoglycans ( E xample 3). Ott further teaches that the decellularized organs are three dimensional scaffolds that can be reseeded with cells (page 7, lines 1-12, line 25-34, page 8, line 1 – page 9 line 15). The decellularized organs can be reseeded with cells ex vivo or in vivo after being transplanted into a patient (page 9, line 24- page 10, line 12). Thus , Ott the implantable decellularized tissue constructs are capable of supporting cell growth and exhibit a characteristic of a corresponding natural tissue prior to decellularization. Thus, Ott anticipates claims 40 and 59. With regard to claim 41, Ott discloses that the decellularized tissue includes the vascular tree (page 6, lines 22-24), and the decellularized lung retains pulmonary arteries down to the capillary level and pulmonary veins remained intact (page 21, lines 4-5). Thus, Ott discloses that the decellularized lung comprises an intact airway tree and vascular network. With regard to claim 42, Ott discloses that the decellularized scaffold can be reseeded with stem cells (page 7, line 25 – page 8 line 15). With regard to claim 45, the Examiner notes the claim’s intended use requirement that the composition is “capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of an alveolar epithelial cell” and notes that the phrase provides no structural limitation to the claim. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In the instant case, the "capable of" clause provides no material patentability, as there is no structural difference between the claimed decellularized lung scaffold of claim 45, and the decellularized lung identified in the prior art. Thus, Ott discloses a decellularized tissue, as required by claim 45. With regard to claim 46, Ott discloses that the solid organ is a decellularized lung, which showed intact collagen, elastin and proteoglycans (Example 3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim s 43, 47 and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO2007/025233 to Ott, of record , as applied to claim s 40-42, 45-46 and 59 above, and further in view of Mondrinos et al, Engineering Three-Dimensional Pulmonary Tissue Constructs. Tissue Engineering, 2006. 12(4):717-728, of record, listed in Applicants' IDS dated 08 / 11 / 23 . The claims encompass embodiments wherein the population of cells comprises epithelial and endothelial cells (claim 43); wherein the cells exhibit gene expression associated with induction of branching morphogenesis (claim 47) and wherein the composition comprises a specific lung characteristic selected from the group consisting of branching morphogenesis (claim 49). The disclosure of Ott is applied as in the 102 rejection above, the content of which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Specifically, Ott discloses a composition comprising a three dimensional scaffold and a population of cells, wherein the composition is capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung (example 3, and page 7, lines 1-12, line 25-34, page 8 line 1 – page 9 line 15) according to claim 40. Ott further discloses that one such population can be endothelial cells or endothelial precursor cells (page 8, lines 12-15). However, Ott does not disclose a composition comprising a population of epithelial and endothelial cells, as required by claim 43. Mondrinos discloses three-dimensional pulmonary tissue constructs (Abstract). Mondrinos discloses that 3D scaffolds are seeded with primary cultures of fetal pulmonary cells containing epithelial and endothelial cells (page 718, column 1). Mondrinos discloses that seeding the fetal pulmonary cells containing epithelial and endothelial cells on a 3d hydrogel structure is capable inducing branching morphogenesis (page 722; page 726 Discussion, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to seed the decellularized lung of Ott with epithelial and endothelial cells of Mondrinos at the time of the invention. A skilled artisan would have wanted to seed epithelial and endothelial cells on the decellularized lung of Ott in order to produce lung tissue capable of branching morphogenesis. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention, as seeding lung tissue scaffolds with epithelial and endothelial cells was known, and the formation of seeded decellularized lungs was known in the art at the time of the invention. With regard to claims 47 and 49, as discussed above, Mondrinos discloses seeding 3D hydrogel scaffolds with primary cultures of fetal pulmonary cells containing epithelial and endothelial cells (page 718, column 1). Mondrinos discloses that seeding the fetal pulmonary cells containing epithelial and endothelial cells on a 3d hydrogel structure is capable inducing branching morphogenesis (page 722; page 726 Discussion, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to seed a decellularized lung with cells capable of branching morphogenesis at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to seed the decellularized lung of Ott with epithelial and endothelial cells of Mondrinos . A skilled artisan would have wanted to seed epithelial and endothelial cells on the decellularized lung of Ott in order to produce lung tissue capable of branching morphogenesis for more accurate lung tissue models. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention, as seeding lung tissue scaffold with epithelial and endothelial cells to induce branching morphogenesis was known, and the formation of seeded decellularized lungs was known in the art at the time of the invention. Claims 44 , 48 and 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ott as applied to claims 40-42, 45-46 and 59 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,625,128 to Wilson, of record, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 5/18/023 . The claims are directed to embodiments wherein the cells are genetically modified (claim 44 ) and the genetically modified gene is CFTR (claim 48 ). The disclosure of Ott is applied as in the 102 rejection above , the content of which is incorporated herein in its entirety . Specifically, Ott discloses a composition comprising a three dimensional scaffold and a population of cells, wherein the composition is capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung (example 3, and page 7, lines 1-12, line 25-34, page 8 line 1 – page 9 line 15) according to claim 40 . However, Ott does not disclose wherein the cells are genetically modified and the genetically modified gene is CFTR as required by claims 44 and 48 . Wilson discloses a non-human airway model, wherein the airway itself is characterized by cells derived from the human respiratory tract by seeding cells on a denuded airway (Abstract, Column 4 lines 4-62). Wilson discloses that the human airway cells have a genetically modified CFTR gene (column 3, lines 46-56). Wilson discloses that such a model is useful in studying the role of the CFTR gene to various potential therapies and agents (Colum 3 , lines 23-31). It would have been obvious to seed a decellularized lung with genetically altered cells expressing the CFTR gene at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to seed the decellularized lung of Ott with cells genetically altered to express CFTR as taught by Wilson. A skilled artisan would have wanted to seed cells expressing CFTR on the decellularized lung of Ott in order to produce a model capable of studying CFTR gene responses to therapies. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention, as seeding decellularized lungs was known, and the genetically altering cells to express CFTR was known in the art at the time of the invention. Claim s 50 -51 are directed to a method of screening a test agent for the ability of said test agent to modulate the health of a lung tissue, said method comprising contacting said test agent to an engineered three dimensional lung tissue model and measuring the effect said test agent has on said model, wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue. Ott discloses a composition comprising a three dimensional scaffold and a population of cells, wherein the composition is capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung (example 3 ; page 7, lines 1-12, line 25-34, page 8 line 1 – page 9 line 15). However, Ott does not disclose wherein the recellularized three dimensional lung tissue is used to screen test agents as required by instant claim 50. Wilson discloses the reseeded lung tissue model is useful in studying the role of the CFTR gene to various potential therapies and agents ( c olum n 3, lines 23-31). The method comprises contacting a test agent to the lung tissue model and measuring the effect said test agent has on said model, wherein any alteration to the model is an indication that said test agent is able to modulate the health of a lung tissue (column 5, line 5 - column 6, line 5 ; column 7, line 10 – column 8, line 30 ). Wilson discloses performing the screening assays on the recellularized lung tissue allows for the study of the delivery, mechanism of action, effectiveness or toxicity of therapeutic agents for lung disease (column 5, lines 6-10). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the recellularized lung tissue of Ott in a method of screening test agents on lung tissue as disclosed by Wilson. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention, using reseeded decellularized lung tissue in methods of screening test agents for their effect on the lung tissue was known at the time of the invention. With regard to claims 52-53 , Wilson discloses the method of screening test agents includes wherein examples of test agents include amiloride, DNAses , liposomes, gene therapy nucleic acids, recombinant viruses, infective agents, and environmental agents and toxins (column 5, lines 15-50), which read on wherein the test agent is a chemical agent, a pharmaceutical, a peptide, a nucleic acid, or a delivery vehicle for a therapeutic agent. Thus, these claims are obvious for the same reasons as stated above for claim 50. With regard to claim 54, Wilson discloses the effect of the test agents are assessed by determining the number of cells and their morphology after exposure to a test agent (column 5, lines 29-34; column 7, line 10 – column 8, line 30). Thus, this claim is obvious for the same reasons as stated above for claim 50. With regard to claim 55, Wilson discloses the method of screening test agents is to assess the efficacy or toxicity of therapeutic and other agents in a predictive animal model of human normal and/or lung disease (column 1, lines 22-45, column 2, lines 23-29, lines 49-56; column 3, lines 3-7, lines 22-31; column 5, lines 5-15 ). Efficacy includes how the test agents affect sodium ion uptake, chloride afflux to may affect clearance of mucous in cystic fibrosis airways (column 5, lines 20-24), assessing expression, location and effect in cells and a disease state following administration of gene therapy (column 5, lines 25-34), which advantageously allows for tailoring a specific therapy for a specific disease state or genotype (column 5, line 65 – column 6, line 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to select a particular agent which has a desired effect on the tissue model as claimed. 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. Claims 40-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,188,683, further in view of WO2007/025233 to Ott, of record. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious over the patented claims in view of the prior art. Claim 40 is directed to a method for making an engineered three dimensional tissue capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung cell, said method comprising seeding a decellularized scaffold with a population of cells to produce a seeded scaffold. Thus, the present claims are methods of using a decellularized scaffold comprising seeding it . Claim 1 of US Patent 10,188,683 are directed to “a method of making a decellularized tissue, comprising perfusing a natural tissue comprising a capillary network with a decellularization solution, wherein the natural tissue is isolated from a mammal, wherein the decellularization solution comprises a solution hypertonic to cells in the tissue, a zwitterionic detergent, and a chelating agent, and wherein the decellularization solution removes cellular material and retains collagen, capillary structure, and structural integrity of the matrix similar to the natural tissue, further comprising monitoring a perfusion pressure during the perfusing and adjusting the perfusion pressure to maintain a pressure of less than 30 mmHg. Claim 2 of the ‘683 patent limits the tissue to lung tissue comprising an airway network. The claims of the ‘683 patent do not require wherein the decellularized scaffold is then seeded with cells, as required by instant claim 40. The disclosure of Ott is applied as in the 102 rejection above, the content of which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Specifically, Ott discloses a composition comprising a three dimensional scaffold and a population of cells, wherein the composition is capable of supporting and maintaining the differentiation state of a lung (example 3, and page 7, lines 1-12, line 25-34, page 8 line 1 – page 9 line 15) according to claim 40. Ott further discloses that one such population can be endothelial cells or endothelial precursor cells (page 8, lines 12-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the claims of the ‘683 patent to further include seeding the decellularized scaffold with cells as presently claimed. Conclusion No claims are allowed. No claims are free of the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KIMBERLY A ARON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2789 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM . 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 Christopher Babic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8507 . 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. KAA /CHRISTOPHER M BABIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1633