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 II ,encompassing claims 18-20, 22-24, 29, 34 and 41, in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged . Claim s 1, 6-7, 11 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 . Applicant's amendment filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged . The amendment cancels claims 2-5, 14-15 and 25-26 and adds claim 57 . Therefore, claims 18-20, 22-24, 29, 34 , 38, 41, and 57 are currently under examination. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application provisional application 63157087, filed on 03/04/2026 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted before the mailing date of the non-final first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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 18,20, 23, 29,34, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Levenberg et al ( WO 2020/261257 A 1 ) . Regarding claim s 1 8 , 20, Levenberg et al teach a method for producing advanced extracellular vesicles (EVs) from stem cells. The method involves culturing stem cells on a three-dimensional (3D) porous scaffold (i.e. microcarriers) in a bioreactor system . Levenberg’s method also involves circulating the medium within the bioreactor at various flow rates , and/or moving the 3D porous scaffold within the bioreactor system. ( See page 4, lines 2-5). In one of the embodiments, Levenberg teaches that the bioreactor is a continuous stirred-tank reactor . It should be noted that culturing stem cells on a 3D porous scaffold in a continuous stirred-tank bioreactor reads on culturing cells in a dynamic culture . ( See claim 1). Levenberg et al also teach that the stem cells could be selected from the group consisting of: adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), induced pluripotent stem cells , cord blood stem cells and amniotic fluid stem cells. ( See claim 21). The method of Levenberg et al also includes collecting the medium; and isolating the secreted EV s dispersed therein, this reads on step (ii) of instant claim 18. ( See claim 1). Regarding claim 23, Levenberg et al also disclose a composition comprising extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) or embryonic stem cells (ESCs ). ( See claim 28). Regarding claims 29,34, and 38, Levenberg et al do not teach that the collected EVs can be used to promote secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines by macrophages, wherein the anti-inflammatory cytokine is IL-10 or INF-gamma. However, such results is an inherent property as it recites functional outcome. This functional outcome is considered inherent, because the active step of the claims ( culturing the iPSCs or ESCs in a dynamic culture to enhance the production of EVs ) is taught by Levenberg et al, and there is nothing in applicants' disclosure that shows that these functional outcome come from something other than the claimed method step. It is noted that the active step requires culturing the iPSCs or ESCs in a dynamic culture ; and collecting the EVs from the culturing medium . The method of Levenberg et al involves the same active step of instant application. Therefore, the EVs collected according to the method of Levenberg et al will inherently result in this functional outcome i.e . promote secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines by macrophages such as IL10, and INF-gamma . As per the MPEP “The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenberg et al ( WO 2020/261257 A1) in view of Adamiak et al ( Integrative Physiology, 2017). Regarding claims 19 and 24, the teachings of Levenberg et al are set forth above. Levenberg et al teach a method for producing EVs from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) . However, Levenberg et al do not teach EVs produced form iPSCs derived from fibroblast. Adamiak et al supplement Levenberg et al by teaching a method for producing EV s from iPSCs derived from fibroblast s and comparing the ability of EV derived from iPSCs to that of iPSCs to treat myocardial infraction. ( See Methods section “ iPSCs generation” and “ EV purification”). Adamiak et al demonstrate that after ischemia/reperfusion and transplantation in vivo , that iPSC-EVs generate greater functional benefits , result in superior perfusion in the infarct zone , and prevent apoptosis compared to iPSCs . On the other hand, iPSC injections resulted in teratoma formation, whereas iPSC-EV injections were safe. Therefore, utilizing EV produced from iPSCs derived from fibroblast offer a safer alternative for potential therapeutic applications in patients with ischemic myocardial damage. ( See abstract) Taken together , instant claims are combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, namely the predictable result being the use of iPSCs derived from fibroblast to produce EVs. Levenberg et al teach a method for inducing advanced production of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from stem cells, and teach the desirability of using iPSCs to produce EVs, but fail to specify the source of the iPSCs. Adamiak et al demonstrate the utility of using iPSCs derived from fibroblast to produce EVs and provide a motivation for an ordinary skill in the art to utilize fibroblast-derived iPSCs to produce EVs that can be safely used in therapeutic applications . Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art who had reviewed Levenberg et al , could have come across Adamiak et al and immediately noticed the strong possibility of using iPSCs derived from fibroblast , as taught by Adamiak, would have the predictable result of producing EVs , according to the method of Levenberg et al , that can be safely used as a possible alternative to iPSCs therapy . Claims 41 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenberg et al ( WO 2020/261257 A1) in view of Mardpour et al (Applied Materials, 2019) . Regarding claims 41 and 57 , the teachings of Levenberg et al are set forth above. Levenberg et al teach a composition comprising extracellular vesicle s derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) or embryonic stem cells (ESCs ). However, Levenberg et al do not teach a composition that further comprises hydrogel. Mardpour et al supplement Levenberg et al by demonstrating that embedding stem cell-derived EVs into hydrogel enables controlled and sustained release of the EVs , significantly improving their therapeutic effectiveness in vivo compared to free EVs injection which is characterized by rapid clearance rate . In other words, Mardpour et al teach that biocompatible hydrogel can serve as a sustained release carrier for exosomes to maintain their bioactivity at the injured tissue accelerating the healing process. Therefore , providing an ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to encapsulate stem cells-derived EV s with hydrogel prior to administration. ( See abstract). Mardpour et al teach PEG-based hydrogel for the encapsulation of EVs and do not teach a hyaluronic acid-based hydrogel. However, Brennan et al supplement Levenberg and Mardpour b y stating that “ free EVs administered via bolus injections are rapidly sequestered and cleared. However, encapsulating EVs with biomaterials (i.e. hydrogel s ) offer s delivery platforms to enhance EV retention rates and healing efficacy ”. ( See abstract). Brennan et al also provide examples form preclinical models showing a composition comprising of mesenchymal stem cells conditioned medium ( MSC-CM ) distributed within a hyaluronic acid (HA) hydrogel enhanced tissue regeneration after endometrial injury, while a hydrogel composed of HA and chondroitin sulfate incorporating MSC-CM achieved corneal wound healing. ( See 2 nd column, 2 nd pargraph on page 7). It should be noted that MSC-CM also contains EVs. In other words, Brennan et al demonstrate the utility of using hyaluronic acid (HA) hydrogel to encapsulate EVs /CM prior injection to offer a controlled release platform , enhancing EV s/CM retention rates and healing efficacy . Taken together, instant claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as there was 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. Levenberg et al teach a method for producing EVs from stem cells and a composition comprising the same, but d o not teach a composition that further comprises hydrogel. Mardpour et al supplement Levenberg et al by demonstrating that embedding stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles into hydrogel enables controlled and sustained release, significantly improving their therapeutic effectiveness in vivo compared to free EVs injection. Brennan et al further provide a scientific evidence from preclinical models wherein the use of hyaluronic acid-based hydrogel were successfully used to deliver EVs /CM to injured tissues, enhancing retention rates and healing efficacy. Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art who had reviewed Levenberg could have come across Mardpour and Brennan et al an d immediately recognized the strong possibility of encapsulating the EVs of Levenberg with Hyaluronic acid-based hydrogel , as taught by Mardpour and Brennan , to overcome the rapid clearance rates , providing a controlled release platform for healing tissues. There is a reasonable expectation of success, when making a composition comprising EVs derived from stem cells, to encapsulate the EVs with hydrogel comprising hyaluronic acid, in that the encapsulated EVs would be efficiently delivered to the injured tissues. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT FATIMAH KHALAF MATALKAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5652 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday,7:30 am-4:30 pm 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 Tracy Vivlemore can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2914 . 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. /FATIMAH KHALAF MATALKAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1638 /Tracy Vivlemore/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638