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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending (claim set as filed on 0 9 /1 4 /202 3 ). Election /Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I , claims 1 and 3-18 , in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 i s acknowledged. Because A pplicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP 818.01(a)). Claims 2 and 19-20 are wi thdrawn 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. Therefore, only cla ims 1 and 3-18 ar e presented for examination. Priority This application is a CON of PCT/IL2022/050307 , which has provisional applications to: (a) 63/302,633 filed on 01/25/2022 ; and (b) 63/162,040 filed on 03/17/2021 . Drawings The drawings fi led on 09/14/2023 ha ve been accepted. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement s (IDS ) submitted on 09/26/2023, 10/08/2023, 12/05/2023, 01/01/2025, and 04/24/2025 are acknowle dged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the Examiner. Claim Objection Claim 8 recite s the abbreviation of “ BSA ” which is presumed to stand for bovine serum albumin as commonly known in the art. However, a n abbreviation should be preceded in its first occurrence by the specific identity of the entity which said abbreviation is intended to represent. Thereafter, the use of the abbreviation in the claims will be understood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112, 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. Claim 12 is rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 11 , wherein said at least one agent is gallic acid or myricetin” and therefore, is inconsistent and/or lacks antecedent basis when the agent is either oleic acid or β-hydroxybutirate as disclosed in base claim 1. Gallic acid or myricetin are species that fall under the genus of a phenolic composition (as evident by instant claim 10 or the instant pre-grant specification at ¶ [0141]-[0144]). Claim 12 will be interpreted with instant claim 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102, Anticipation 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. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 -10 , and 12- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng ( Moringa Extract Attenuates Inflammatory Responses and Increases Gene Expression of Casein in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells , 2019 - cited by the ISA and in the IDS filed on 09/26/2023). Cheng ’s objective was to investigate the protective e ff ects of M oringa extract (ME) in bovine mammary epithelial cells (MAC-T) ( claim 7 ) in in vitro settings (see abstract). Regarding claim 1 , Cheng teaches MAC-T cells were cultured in high glucose DMEM and then pre-treated with ME at concentrations of 50 and 200 µ g/ml for 12 h ours (see page 3: Section 2.4.: Cell Culture and Treatments). Cheng discloses “ To evaluate whether ME could a ff ect the synthesis of milk components … Importantly, treatment with ME induced significant casein ( i.e., the predetermined milk component being protein as in claim 13 ) gene expression in di ff erentiated cells ” (see page 8: Section 3.5.: Effects of ME on Casein Production in Differentiated MAC-T cells). Cheng discloses “ feeding moringa leaves to dairy cattle not only increases milk yield, but also improves their health ” (see page 10: Discussion). Cheng teaches that lactation is the most important function of bovine mammary epithelial cells and investigates different supplements for production of milk components in dairy cattle (i.e., harvesting of secretome milk from MECs of claim 3 ) (see pages 11-12, last ¶ - Conclusion). Regarding claims 9-10 and 12 pertaining to the phenolic composition, Cheng discloses that Moringa oleifera is a tropical plant possessing beneficial properties and contains various antioxidant compounds, including phenolic acids, flavonoids, vitamin C, tannin, saponin, phytate, oxalate, alkaloid, cardenolides, and cardiac glycosides (see page 2, mid-section). Cheng further teaches “ these antioxidant e ff ects were attributed to the rich content of flavonoids (e.g., myricetin , quercetin, and kaempferol) and phenolic acids (e.g., gallic acid and chlorogenic acid) in ME. They are well-known antioxidants that can help neutralize free radicals, quench singlet or triplet oxygen, or decompose peroxides ” (see page 11, 2 nd ¶). Claim interpretation : regarding the recitation of “optionally”, the MPEP 2111.04 states that “a 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” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, Obviousness 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1, 5 -6 , and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 9 -10 , and 12- 13 above, and in view of Elhofy (US 2015/0175956 A1). Cheng ’s disclosure is discussed above as it pertains to culturing mammary epithelial cells in a medium composition comprising phenolic acid composition. However , Cheng d oes not teach : said composition comprising at least one agent selected from oleic acid ( claim 1 ’s limitation and claim 5 ) ; or further comprises BSA ( claim 6 ), or amino acid ( claim 14 ). Elhofy ’s general disclosure relates to a cell culture growth media comprising a base physiological buffer and liposomes comprising cholesterol, phosphatidylcholine and fatty acids (see abstract & ¶ [0002]-[0003]). The media is useful for promoting viability, growth and proliferation of primary cells or cell lines in cell culture, wherein the media comprises liposomes with a lipid profile conducive to cell maintenance and growth (see ¶ [0009] , [0078] ). Regarding claim 5 pertaining to oleic acid, Elhofy teaches that the liposomes comprise one or more fatty acids selected from linolenic acid, myristic acid, and oleic acid (see ¶ [0010]-[0011], [0024], [0090]). T he liposomes comprise cholesterol and phosphatidylcholine, and fatty acids at concentrations that provide a more physiologically relevant milieu for cell growth ; where fatty acids in a final concentration of about 0.5 to 5 mg/L, 0.75 to 4, 1 to 3, 0.5 to 3, 0.5 to 2, or 1 to 2 mg/L (see ¶ [0087]-[0090], Table 1 ). Regarding the claimed concentrations, “ Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. W here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation ” (MPEP 2144.05 (II))). T he adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., the concentration of a n ingredient ) is deemed a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is within the purview of the skill artisan as evident by Elhofy. Regarding claim 6 pertaining to BSA, Elhofy also discloses other known media in the art comprises bovine serum albumin (see ¶ [0006]). Claim interpretation : regarding the recitation of “optionally”, the MPEP 2111.04 states that “a 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” . Regarding claim 14 pertaining to the amino acid, Elhofy teaches “ the liposome is loaded with other compositions beneficial in cell culture. Exemplary compositions beneficial in cell culture include, but are not limited to, buffers, iron transporters, free fatty acids, growth peptides GHK peptide comprising gly-his-lys trimer), amino acids (essential and non-essential), vitamins, trace elements, antioxidants and/or salts ” (see ¶ [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ or use oleic acid, BSA, and/or amino acids such as taught by Elhofy in the teachings of Cheng. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so is because Elhofy teaches a cell media that is useful for promoting viability, growth and proliferation of primary cells or cell lines in cell culture . Moreover, the claimed ingredients are considered well-known or commonly employed in the cell media art and their combination would have been readily apparent as additives for promoting cell cultivation. Claim s 4 and 8 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove r Cheng in view of Elhofy as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Zhang ( β-Hydroxybutyrate Facilitates Fatty Acids Synthesis Mediated by Sterol Regulatory Element-Binding Protein1 in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells , 2015 ). Cheng and Elhofy ’s disclosures are discussed above as it pertains to culturing mammary epithelial cells in a medium composition comprising phenolic acid composition and oleic acid. However , Cheng -Elhofy d o not teach : wherein the predetermined components are milk lipids ( claim 4 ) ; or wherein said agent comprises β-hydroxybutirate (BHBA) ( claim 8 ). Zhang discloses “ Butyric acid is absorbed and metabolized into β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) by ruminal epithelium cells. BHBA is the main precursor of milk fat synthesis in r uminants ” (see page 2116, 2 nd ¶). Zhang discloses that “ the aim of this study is to investigate whether BHBA facilitates milk fat synthesis mediated by SREBP1/Cidea in bovine mammary epithelial cells cultured in vitro ” (see page 2116, 5 th ¶). Zhang teaches bovine mammary epithelial cells were cultured and treated with 0, 0.6, 1.2, 2.4 mM BHBA for 24 h (see page 2117: BHBA treatment and transfection). Zhang teaches that BHBA promotes de novo fatty acid synthesis (see page 2118: Results); BHBA treatment can influence the synthesis of triglyceride content where TG content in the supernatant were measured ( claim 3 ) ( see pages 2120-2121). “ Taken together, these results indicate that BHBA can induce SREBP1 activation and then upregulate the expression of lipid synthesis enzymes FAS, ACC-α, Cidea and DGAT-1, thereby increasing TG secretion in bovine mammary epithelial cells ” (see page 2121, last ¶). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ or use BHBA such as taught by Zhang in the teachings of Cheng-Elhofy for the production of milk lipids. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so is because Zhang teaches that BHBA can induce SREBP1 activation and then upregulate the expression of lipid synthesis enzymes , thereby increasing TG secretion in bovine mammary epithelial cells (see Zhang at page 2121, last ¶). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so is because the references are directed to investigating the effects of additives in bovine mammary epithelial cells secretion of milk components. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 9 -10 , and 12- 13 above, and in view of Turner (US Patent no. 5,227,301 ). Cheng ’s disclosure is discussed above as it pertains to culturing mammary epithelial cells in a medium composition comprising phenolic acid composition. However , Cheng d oes not teach : wherein the predetermined components are milk carbohydrates and optionally the milk carbohydrate is lactose ( claim 11 ). Turner ’s general disclosure relates to “a bovine immortalized mammary epithelial cell line which has normal physiological responses in that it produces milk constituents which comprises α- and β-casein and lactose . There is provided, using the cell line of the present invention a method of ‘in vitro’ studying lactation” (see abstract & col. 2, lines 20-25). Turner further teaches bovine mammary epithelial cells were cultured and analyzed for lactose and casein content (see col. 3-4). Turner discloses that “two major constituents of milk are casein proteins and the disaccharide, lactose” (see col. 8, lines 19-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to envisage milk carbohydrate of lactose such as taught by Turner as the predetermined milk component in Cheng. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so is because Turner discloses that lactose is one of the two major constituents in milk. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success is because the references are drawn to cultivation of mammary epithelial cells (MAC-T) and investigating effects on milk production. Claim s 14-1 8 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove r Cheng in view of Elhofy as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Wang ( Dipeptide (Methionyl-Methionine) Transport and Its Effect on β-Casein Synthesis in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells , 2018). Cheng and Elhofy ’s disclosures are discussed above as it pertains to culturing mammary epithelial cells in a medium composition comprising phenolic acid composition and oleic acid. As noted above, Elhofy teaches “ the liposome is loaded with other compositions beneficial in cell culture. Exemplary compositions beneficial in cell culture include, but are not limited to, buffers, iron transporters, free fatty acids, growth peptides GHK peptide comprising gly-his-lys trimer), amino acids (essential and non-essential , claim 14 ), vitamins, trace elements, antioxidants and/or salts ” (see ¶ [0050]). However , Cheng -Elhofy d o not teach : wherein said dipeptide is a Met-Met dipeptide ( claim 17 ); or the predetermined amino acid concentrations and/or ratios ( claim s 15-16 and 18 ). Wang ’s general disclosure relates to “ investigate the transport properties and utilization of methionyl-methionine dipeptide (Met-Met) in β-casein (β-CN) synthesis in bovine mammary epithelial cells (BMECs) ” (see abstract). Wang concludes that “ the properties of peptide transporter and its effect on β-CN synthesis in BMECs. Met-Met, taken up by PepT2, enhances cell proliferation and promotes β-CN synthesis by activating JAK2-STAT5 and mTOR signaling pathways in BMECs ” (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ or use a Met-Met dipeptide such as taught by Wang in the teachings of Cheng-Elhofy for the culturing of mammary epithelial cells. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so is because Wang suggests the dipeptide enhances cell proliferation and promotes β-casein (β-CN) synthesis. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation because the references are directed to culture of bovine mammary epithelial cells. Furthermore, regarding the amino acid concentration and/or ratios, as stated above, “ Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. W here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation ” (MPEP 2144.05 (II))). T he adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., the concentration of an ingredient ) is deemed a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is within the purview of the skill artisan as evident by Wang which discloses testing different concentrations of amino acids (see, e.g., page 483: Results). 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Cla ims 1, 3-4, 6 -7 , 9, and 12 are provisionally reject ed on the ground of non - statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least cla ims 1-2, 5-6, 20-23, and 29 (claim set as filed on 11/05/2024) o f co-pending Applicatio n no. 18/862,996 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Regarding claim 1 , co-pending ‘996 teaches a method of increasing lipid synthesis or accumulation in mammary epithelial cells (MEC s ) culture comprising contacting the MECs with an LXR agonist in the presence of a fatty acid (oleic acid), phenolic composition, and β-hydroxybutirate (see claims 1-2 , 5 , and 20 of co-pending ‘996). Regarding claim s 3-4 , co-pending ‘996 teaches harvesting lipids from said MECs or from a medium of said culture of said MECs (see claim 6 of co-pending ‘996). Regarding claim 6 , co-pending ‘996 teaches in the presence of albumin, optionally wherein said albumin is bovine serum albumin (BSA), optionally wherein said albumin is BSA or plant albumin (see claim 23 of co-pending ‘996). Regarding claim 7 , co-pending ‘996 teaches wherein said MECs are human or bovine MECs (see claim 26 of co-pending ‘996). Regarding claim 9 , co-pending ‘996 teaches wherein said composition is selected from the group consisting of flavonol, flavanol, flavone and anthocyanidin (see claim 21 of co-pending ‘996). Regarding claim 12 , co-pending ‘996 teaches wherein said phenolic composition is selected from gallic acid or myricetin (see claim 22 of co-pending ‘996). This is a provisional non - statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims were allowed. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NGHI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3055 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri: 9 - 3 pm (ET) . 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 Sharmila Landau can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0614 . 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. /NGHI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653