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. Priority The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT application PCT/JP2022/005137, filed 07/20/2023 under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application JP2021-019120 filed in JAPAN on 0 2 / 09 /20 21 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I , claims 1-6 and 13 , drawn to a method comprising culturing a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population and/or a cell population at a later stage of differentiation to be treated, in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged . Claims 1-6 and 13 have been considered on the merits . Claims 7-12 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b). Title The title is objected to because t he title of the invention (MATURATION AGENT) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Interpretation Claims 1, 6 and 13 recite “ a cell population at a later stage of differentiation ”. The Specification (see [0046]) provides the definition of the phrase , which means a cell population richer in cells whose stage of differentiation is more advanced than that of pancreatic endocrine progenitor cells, as compared with a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population. Examples of "cells whose stage of differentiation more advanced than that of pancreatic endocrine progenitor cells" include insulin-producing cells . The cla i ms are interpreted in light of this definition presents in the Specification. 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. Claims 1- 2, 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2004121165 A , cited in IDS ) , as evidenced by Ganesh et al. ( J Med Chem. 2007 Feb 22;50(4):713-25 ) and Ojima ( J Fluor Chem. 2017 Jun;198:10-23 ). Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of pancreatic stem-like cells into insulin-producing cells, a method for screening a pancreatic stem-like cell differentiation inducer, and a pancreatic stem-like cell differentiation inducer obtained by the screening (parag 0001). Regarding claim 1, the preamble “ producing an insulin-producing cell population ” is considered as intend use. MPEP 2111.02 states “[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 to be given patentable weight and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Besides, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of pancreatic stem-like cells into insulin-producing cells (parag 0001) , reads on “a method for producing an insulin-producing cell populatio n” in instant claim. Yoshihiro et al. teach the pancreatic stem-like cell refers to a stem cell having the ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas (parag 0019). Given that a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell has ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas , the pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell is considered as one type of pancreatic stem-like cell s . Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell, comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). C ells were differentiated into insulin-producing cells by paclitaxel (parag 0049). P aclitaxel is a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity , which is evidenced by Ganesh et al. . Ganesh et al. teach the important anticancer drug paclitaxel binds to the β-subunit of the αβ-tubulin dimer in the microtubule in a stoichiometric ratio, promoting microtubule polymerization and stability (Abstract). In sum, the teachings above anticipate the method comprising culturing a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population to be treated in a medium containing a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity as recited in instant claim. Regarding claim 2, following the discussion above, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell, comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). P aclitaxel is a taxoid anticancer agent , which is evidenced by Ojima. Ojima teaches p aclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (a “taxoid”) are two of the most extensively used chemotherapeutic agents in clinic (p11, right column , also see Table 1 and 2 , p14 ). Regarding claims 4 and 5, since Yoshihiro et al. teach the same method as recited in instant claim s , the product produced by the method is considered to be inherent. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . See MPEP 2112.02. Regarding claim 13, the preamble “ for removing non-endocrine cells ” is considered as intend use. MPEP 2111.02 states “[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 to be given patentable weight and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Following the discussion above, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). Yoshihiro et al. also teach the pancreatic stem-like cell refers to a stem cell having the ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas (parag 0019). Given that a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell has ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas , the pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell is considered as one type of pancreatic stem-like cell . In addition, as stated above, p aclitaxel is a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity , which is evidenced by Ganesh et al. . Therefore Yoshihiro et al. anticipate the method in instant claim. 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. Claim s 1 -5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2004121165 A , cited in IDS ) , as evidenced by Ganesh et al. ( J Med Chem. 2007 Feb 22;50(4):713-25 ) and Ojima ( J Fluor Chem. 2017 Jun;198:10-23 ), in view of Resman et al. ( FEBS Lett. 2008 Nov 26;582(28):3929-34 ) . Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of pancreatic stem-like cells into insulin-producing cells, a method for screening a pancreatic stem-like cell differentiation inducer, and a pancreatic stem-like cell differentiation inducer obtained by the screening (parag 0001). Regarding claim 1, the preamble “ producing an insulin-producing cell population ” is considered as intend use. MPEP 2111.02 states “[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 to be given patentable weight and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Besides, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of pancreatic stem-like cells into insulin-producing cells (parag 0001) , reads on “a method for producing an insulin-producing cell populatio n” in instant claim. Yoshihiro et al. teach the pancreatic stem-like cell refers to a stem cell having the ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas (parag 0019). Given that a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell has ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas , the pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell is considered as one type of pancreatic stem-like cell s. Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell, comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). C ells were differentiated into insulin-producing cells by paclitaxel (parag 0049). P aclitaxel is a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity , which is evidenced by Ganesh et al. . Ganesh et al. teach the important anticancer drug paclitaxel binds to the β-subunit of the αβ-tubulin dimer in the microtubule in a stoichiometric ratio, promoting microtubule polymerization and stability (Abstract). In sum, the teachings above reads on the method comprising culturing a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population to be treated in a medium containing a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity , as recited in instant claim. Regarding claim 2, following the discussion above, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell, comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). P aclitaxel is a taxoid anticancer agent , which is evidenced by Ojima. Ojima teaches paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (a “taxoid”) are two of the most extensively used chemotherapeutic agents in clinic (p11, right column, also see Table 1 and 2, p14). Regarding claims 4 and 5, since Yoshihiro et al. teach the same method as recited in instant claims, the product produced by the method is considered to be inherent. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . See MPEP 2112.02. Regarding claim 13, the preamble “ for removing non-endocrine cells ” is considered as intend use. MPEP 2111.02 states “[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 to be given patentable weight and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Following the discussion above, Yoshihiro et al. teach a method comprising culturing the pancreatic stem-like cell in a medium supplemented with at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a non-protein receptor agonist, a non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof. A non-protein receptor antagonist, and an analog thereof is paclitaxel (parag 0015). Yoshihiro et al. also teach the pancreatic stem-like cell refers to a stem cell having the ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas (parag 0019). Given that a pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell has ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas , the pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell is considered as one type of pancreatic stem-like cell . In addition, as stated above, p aclitaxel is a compound having tubulin polymerization-promoting activity , which is evidenced by Ganesh et al. . Therefore Yoshihiro et al. ’s teaching reads on the method of instant claim. Regarding claim 3, Yoshihiro et al. do not teach using docetaxel or a pharmacologically acceptable salt thereof for the method for producing an insulin-producing cell population . However, it was disclosed by Resman et al. at the time of instant invention. Resman et al. teach p aclitaxel binds to human MD-2. The binding site of paclitaxel overlaps with the binding site of bis-ANS and LPS, which results in the ability of taxanes to inhibit LPS signaling in the system with human receptors. Circular dichroic spectra of human MD-2 indicated differences in the chemical environment in the presence of paclitaxel and docetaxel (Abstract). Regarding claim 3, Resman et al. teach p aclitaxel and docetaxel bind to the LPS receptor human MD-2 (p3930, figure 2) , indicates that both p aclitaxel and docetaxel are agents acting on the LPS receptor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshihiro et al . ’s method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell using p aclitaxel , and use docetaxel as taught by Resman et al. . The only difference between instant claim and Yoshihiro et al . ’s method is instant claim uses docetaxel . Given that Yoshihiro et al . teach agent acting on the L PS receptor such as p aclitaxel can be used in the method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell ( parag 0032) , and Resman et al. teach both p aclitaxel and docetaxel bind to the LPS receptor , o ne of ordinary skill in the art w ould have substitute d p aclitaxel , and use d ocetaxel instead, depends on their research interests or preference . This simple substitution of one known element (d ocetaxel ) for another known element ( p aclitaxel ) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Claim s 1- 2, 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2004121165 A , cited in IDS ) , as evidenced by Ganesh et al. ( J Med Chem. 2007 Feb 22;50(4):713-25 ) and Ojima ( J Fluor Chem. 2017 Jun;198:10-23 ), in view of Rezania et al. ( Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Nov;32(11):1121-33 , cited in IDS ) . The teaching of Yoshihiro et al. is set forth above. Regarding claim 6, Yoshihiro et al. teach the pancreatic stem-like cell refers to a stem cell having the ability to differentiate into a cell that forms the pancreas, and examples thereof include an embryonic stem cell (ES cell), an adult stem cell, a fetal tissue-derived stem cell, and a subcultured cell line obtained by cancerating these cells (parag 0019) . Herein the embryonic stem cell is one type of pluripotent stem cells . In other words, Yoshihiro et al. teach culturing pluripotent stem cells in the presence of paclitaxel for producing insulin-producing cells . Yoshihiro et al. do not directly teach producing pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population by the induction of differentiation from pluripotent stem cells. However, th is limitation of pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population can be produced by the induction of differentiation from pluripotent stem cells was disclosed by Rezania et al. at the time of instant invention. Rezania et al. teach a seven-stage protocol that efficiently con v erts hESCs into insulin-producing cells (Abstract). Regarding claim 6, Rezania et al. teach differentiation protocol which converts hESCs into insulin-producing cells (figure 1, p1122). In step 5, pancreatic endocrine precursors are produced by undifferentiated pluripotent stem cells ( also see online methods part). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshihiro et al . ’s method for inducing differentiation of a pancreatic stem-like cell into an insulin-producing cell , and use pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population as starting cell population which is produced by the method taught by Rezania et al. . The only difference between instant claim and Yoshihiro et al . ’s method is instant claim uses pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population which is produced by the induction of differentiation from pluripotent stem cells. Given that Yoshihiro et al . teach the pancreatic stem-like cells which can be used in the method include any stem cell s having the ability to differentiate into cell s that form the pancreas (parag 0019), o ne of ordinary skill in the art w ould have substitute d any other pancreatic stem-like cells for pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population which is produced by the induction of differentiation from pluripotent stem cells, depends on their research interests or preference . This simple substitution of one known element ( pancreatic endocrine progenitor cell population which is produced by the induction of differentiation from pluripotent stem cells ) for another known element ( any other pancreatic stem-like cells ) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT QINHUA GU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1176 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9:00 - 5:00 . 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. /Q.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1633 /FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699