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. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026. 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 . Claim s 1 , 3-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 4, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/335897 in view of Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 and further in view of Hu, S et al. 2011 , Azuma , K et al. 2012 , Kahil H, et al. 2021 . Claim 1 of the reference application claims a nanoparticle with a fucoidan core, a metal oxide coating and an outer coating of fucoidan. Furthermore, clam 4 states the nanoparticles of clam 1 are iron oxide nan o particles . Importantly, the reference application claim 11 , claims the nanoparticle of claim 1 comprise gadolinium-based materials. Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 provide s the motivation to add polyvinyl alcohol to the outer coating of the nanoparticles of reference application claim 4 because it stabilizes the nanoparticles and prevents aggregation of nanoparticles into clusters . Additionally, Hu, S et al. 2011 provides the motivation to put the aforementioned nanoparticle into an umbilical-cord derived mesenchymal stem cell (UC-MSC) because by incorporating them into umbilical-cord derived MSCs, they improve the ability of the MSCs to m igrat e to the wound area and promote and faster migration to the therapeutic site (see figure 2) . Furthermore, umbilical-cord derived MSCs loaded with SPIO nanoparticles are able to remain in the body for up to 18 weeks, which is a significant extension of half-life. Azuma , K et al. 2012 provides additional motivations to coat nanoparticles in fucoidan derived from Cladosiphon okamuranus in the range from 6 kDa up to 330 kDa, due to its pronounced antitumor effects and ability to extend patient s urvival times, rendering claims 3- 4 obvious over the reference application ’ s claim 4. Additionally, Mahmoudi, M. et all 2008 provides a motive to optimize particle size, superparamagnetic properties and shape , rendering claim 6 of the instant application a n obvious variation of ref erence claim 4 . Furthermore , Kahil H, et al. 2021 provides motivation to alter the gadolinium content of SPIO nanoparticles to manipulate the SAR ( specific absorption rate ) which determines hysteric heating capacity of nanoparticles. Therefore, the limitations of claims 5, 9-10 are optimizable parameters and therefore obvious over the reference application’s claim 4. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No US 10736964 B2 in view of in view of Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 and further in view of Hu, S et al. 2011, Azuma , K et al. 2012, Kahil H, et al. 2021 and Zhang, H et al. 2017. Patent claim 1 clams a nanoparticle with a core and a shell. The shell is coated in fucoidan and superparamagnetic iron oxides. Importantly, Zhang, H et al. 2017 provides the motivation to include gadolinium because its addition into the iron oxide results in a lower coercivity value for the nanoparticle which renders it far more effective in treatment regimens because it’s easier and more efficient to induce hysteresis. Additionally, refer to double patenting rationale outlined above (ref app: 18/335897 ). Briefly, the aforementioned references provide obvious teachings and motivations to modify the nanoparticle outlined in claim 1 of the patent to include a fucoidan/gadolinium core wherein the core is covered by a superparamagnetic iron oxide that is bound to the core through ionic interaction with gadolinium and coated in fucoidan and polyvinyl alcohol, and to have this nanoparticle incorporated into an umbilical-cord derived stem cell. Additional rationales for the obviousness of claims 3-10 can also be found above. 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. Claim s 1 -2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/124444 Al in view of Zhang, H et al. 2017, A bdollah, M et al. 2018, Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008, Li, X et al. 2019, and Hu, S et al. 2011, which are supported by Apostolova , I et al. 2023, Kobayashi, T et al. 2011, and Kahil , H et al. 2021 and Chakraborty, I et al. 2021. WO 2013/124444 Al discloses, “a method for preparing beads comprising an imaging agent comprising the following steps: i) preparing an alkaline aqueous solution comprising an amount of at least one polysaccharide, an amount of at least one imaging agent and an amount of a cross - linking agent.” (page 8 lines 19-24). Additionally, “In this embodiment, step iv) thus provides… a polysaccharide bead comprising imaging agent having fucoidan on its surface, wherein said polysaccharide is fucoidan.” (page 9, lines 10-14). Furthermore, “Preferably, said at least one imaging agent is chosen among: …the group consisting of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles (USPIOs), gadolinium III (Gd.sup.3+), … and mixtures thereof…” (Page 9, lines 20-22). Therefore, it discloses a nanoparticle consisting of fucoidan, gadolinium, and superparamagnetic iron oxide wherein the particle is coated with fucoidan. It does not disclose the use of polyvinyl alcohol as an additional coating material, the electrical nature of the attraction between gadolinium and the superparamagnetic iron oxide or the internalization of these nanoparticles into mesenchymal stem cells. Zhang, H et al. 2017 discloses, “ Our results showed that Gd-doped nanoparticles retained the magnetite crystal structure, with Gd3+ randomly incorporated in the crystal lattice, probably in the octahedral sites. The composition of 5 at% Gd-doped magnetite was Fe(3−x)GdxO4 (x=0.085±0.002), .. . 5 at% Gd doped nanoparticles exhibited ferrimagnetic properties with small coercivity (~65 Oe) and slightly decreased magnetization at 260 K in contrast to the undoped, superparamagnetic magnetite nanoparticles. ” ( abstract ). Therefore, Zhang, H et al. 2017 has provided a motivation to include the superparamagnetic iron oxide coating to the fucoidan-based core (as disclosed above) and to also incorporate gadolinium into the octahedral electron orbitals of the iron oxide. This results in an ionic linkage between gadolinium and iron-oxide , as well as leaving gadolinium the opportunity to form ionic interactions with the negatively charged fucoidan core. ( Ionic interaction supporting reference: Apostolova , I et al. 2023 . See octahedral site incorporation and Gadolinium incorporation into the outer and inner surfaces of the shell ). It is the small /reduced coercivity of the resulting combination that drives the motivation to combine . Coercivity is a measure of a magnetic material’s ability to resist demagnetization. Magnetization reversal of a material subjected to a magnetic field (hysteresis) generates heat which results in irreversible thermal damage in cells and therefore cell death. It also sensitizes cells to concurrent radiation and chemotherapy, increasing overall therapeutic effectiveness. Additionally, the heat regulates the surround ing immune-microenvironment resulting in the activation of anti-tumor responses. (supported by Kobayashi, T et al. 2011 and Kahil , H et al. 2021 ). A bdollah, M et al. 2018 discloses, “ The effects of fucoidan on SPION biodistribution were evaluated using ferucarbotran … Results obtained with 99mTc-ferucarbotran demonstrated that administration of fucoidan led to a fold increase in the circulatory half life (t1/2slow) from37.4 to 150min(n=4;P<0.0001)… In this model, the longer circulatory half-life achieved with fucoidan was as sociated with a doubling i n tumor SPION uptake (n=5;P< 0.001). ” (abstract). Therefore, A bdollah, M et al. 2018 provides the motivation to apply a fucoidan coat to the surface of the outer shell of the aforementioned nanoparticle ( containing a fucoidan core, and an iron oxide shell with gadolinium incorporated at the outer and inner surface of the shell forming ionic bonds with the iron oxide and the fucoidan. ). The motivation is driven by the fact it was shown that an outer fucoidan coating increases the circulatory half-life and results in increased tumor uptake of the nanoparticle. Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 discloses, “PVA not only stabilized the colloid but also played a role in preventing further growth of SPION followed by the formation of large agglomerates by chemisorption on the surface of particles.” (abstract). Therefore, Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 provides the motivation to add polyvinyl alcohol to the outer shell as a coating because it stabilizes the particles and prevents aggregation of nanoparticles into clusters which reduces their effectiveness . Li, X et al. 2019 discloses, “ The Fe 3 O 4 @PDA NPs could be effectively incorporated into the MSCs without any negative effects on stem cell properties. Furthermore, they enhanced the migration ability of the MSCs by up-regulating the expression level of C–X–C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) …Additionally, the labeled MSC group showed increased cytokines and reduced pro-inflammatory factors compared with the unlabeled MSC group. ” (abstract). Importantly, “ MSCs were isolated from the bone marrow of the femur and t ibia …” ( BM MSC isolation and culture paragraph in Methods section) Therefore, Li, X et al. 2019 provides a motivation to incorporate the aforementioned nanoparticle, (aka a fucoidan based core wherein the core is c overed by a shell of superparamagnetic iron oxide that has gadolinium incorporated onto the inner and outer surfaces of the shell which causes it to form an ionic interacti ons with both the negatively charged fucoidan and the superparamagnetic oxide coat, and that shell/coat is further coated by fucoidan and polyvinyl alcohol ), into a mesenchymal stem cell derived from bone marrow, for transport and delivery. The incorporation of the nanoparticle results in phenotypic changes to the mesenchymal cell that enhance its homing to the tumor site, and shift the immune-microenvironment to an antitumor environment. Importantly, the incorporation of gadolinium into the nanoparticle with an iron oxide shell does not results in significant cytotoxicity , as supported by Chakraborty, I et al. 2021. Hu, S et al. 2011 discloses, “ Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUC-MSCs) can be efficiently labeled by superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles …(abstract). Furthermore, “ Our results also showed that typical regions of hypointense signal was observed in the SPIO-labeled hUC-MSCs group and the signal loss persisted at least 3 weeks. More important, 3 weeks later, hypointense signal seemed to spread towards the injury site, which indicated that the hUC-MSCs survived and migrated towards injury epicenter … MRI can track the SPIO-labeled human neural stem cells transplanted in the host tissue for more than 18 weeks … a clear signal was obtained from SPIO-labeled hUC-MSCs grafted spinal cord. ” (paragraph 7 Discussion section). Therefore, Hu, S et al. 2011 provides a teaching and motivation to incorporate the aforementioned nanoparticle, (outlined above), into umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells for in-vivo transport and delivery. They show that by incorporating SPIO nanoparticles into umbilical cord-derived MSCs, the loaded cells display greater overall migration, and faster migration to the therapeutic site (see figure 2). Furthermore, umbilical-cord derived MSCs loaded with SPIO nanoparticles are able to remain in the body for up to 18 weeks, which is a significant extension of half-life. These are significant improvements to the effectiveness of the drug delivery system that motivates the use of umbilical cord derived MSCs as opposed to other sources of MSC (like bone marrow derived). WO 2015154007 A1 discloses, “ In some embodiments, the first Tl -reducing contrast agent comprises … gadodiamide … the gadolinium compound is encapsulated in liposomes. In some embodiments, the T2-reducing contrast agent comprises an iron oxide. In some embodiments, the iron oxide is … magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles .” (paragraph 0002) Therefore, WO 2015154007 A1 provides a teaching to incorporate the use of the gadolinium compound gadodiamide with magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. The use of both a T1 and T2 contrast agent improves the sensitivity and reduces false positives during the diagnostic phase. These disclosures render claim s 1-2, as well as claim 7 (mesenchymal cell derived from bone marrow) , and claim 8 (specifically using umbilical-cord derived mesenchymal stem cells) obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Furthermore, Kahil H, et al. 2021 provides motivation to optimize the gadolinium content of SPIO nanoparticles to manipulate the SAR ( specific absorption rate ) which determines hysteric heating capacity of nanoparticles. Specifically. “T he highest obtained value of SAR is 97.0 W/g for GdIO/0.04 followed by 67.4 W/g for GdIO/0 and finally, 16.64 W/g for GdIO/0.02. Thus, GdIO/0.04 gave almost a sixfold enhancement in SAR value compared with GdIO/0. ” (paragraph 2 of section 3.2: Assessment of SAR). Additionally, Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008 provides a motive to optimize particle size, superparamagnetic properties and shape. They disclose “ A rich behavior in particle size, particle type formation, and super paramagnetic properties was observed as a function of molarity and stirring conditions. From the size, shape, and magnetic measurements, it was shown that nanoparticles, magnetic beads, and the CNCs exhibit well-defined superparamagnetic behavior with different magnetic saturations. ” (paragraph 1 under 4. Conclusions section). These routine optimizations performed in the prior art render claim 5 , claim 6 , claim 9 , and claim 10 obvious. Claim s 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/124444 Al , Zhang, H et al. 2017, A bdollah, M et al. 2018, Mahmoudi, M et al. 2008, and Li, X et al. 2019, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azuma , K et al. 2012 . Azuma , K et al. 2012 discloses, “We evaluated the anti-tumor activities of the oral administration of fucoidan extracted from Cladosiphon okamuranus using a tumor (colon 26)-bearing mouse model… The IMWF (intermediate-molecular-weight fucoidan: 110-138kDa) group showed significantly suppressed tumor growth. The LMWF (low-molecular-weight fucoidan: 6.5-40 kDa) and HMWF (high-molecular-weight fucoidan: 300-330 kDa) groups showed significantly increased survival times compared with that observed in the control group (mice fed a fucoidan-free diet).” (abstract). Therefore, Azuma , K et al. 2012 provides additional motivations to coat nanoparticles in fucoidan derived from Cladosiphon okamuranus in the molecular weight range of 6 .5 kDa up to 330 kDa, due to their antitumor effects and prolonged survival times. This disclosure renders claim 3 (T he cell-nanoparticle drug delivery system as claimed in claim I, wherein the fucoidan is obtained from a brown seaweed material selected from the group consisting of Cladosiphon okamuranus …) and claim 4 ( The cell-nanoparticle drug delivery system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the fucoidan has an average molecular weight ranging from 1 kDa to 200 kDa .) obvious. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Adam M Smith whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7517 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday- Friday 10:30AM-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 Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at 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. /Tracy Vivlemore/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638