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. This action is responsive to papers filed on Dec. 13, 2023. Claims 1-7 are pending and examined below. Priority The application is a CIP of applications 18/477,475, now abandoned, and application 16/010,120, now U.S. Patent No. 11,890,395. The parent application claims priority to provisional applications 6 2 / 521,137 , filed June 16 , 20 17. The current claims are supported by the original disclosure, as such the ir priority date is 16 , 20 17. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed A pr . 24 , 202 4 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. 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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,395 (“the ‘395 patent”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claim s (claim 1 of both the patent and the application) differ only in that claim 1 of the ‘395 patent has two limitation that are more narrowly defined than claim 1 of the application: (1) the scaffold is recited as having a “flat orientation” and (2) the cardiac cells are recited as forming an intact syncytium. The application is silent on the orientation of the scaffold and requires only the recited variations of cardiac cells, not that these cells form an intact syncytium. Independent claim 1 of the ‘395 patent encompasses a more narrow embodiment of claim 1 of the application; as such, claim 1 of the application is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘395 patent. Dependent claims 2-7 of the application are identical to dependent claims 2-7 of the application. Therefore, claim 1-7 would be anticipated by claims 1-7 of the ‘395 patent. Conclusion No claims are allowed. The claim limitation interpretation that the woven or knitted scaffold has two fiber types, the first including glycolide , lactide, and trimethylene carbonate and the second including lactide, and trimethylene carbonate, with the first fiber type having a degradation profile that is different from the second fiber type has been established in the parent case, now U.S. Patent No. 11,890,395, specifically in Applicants Remarks filed on Sept. 11, 2023. Additionally, the discussion of why the claims were differentiated from the prior art that was found persuasive in the parent case (again, found in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,395, Applicants Remarks filed on Sept. 11, 2023) are also persuasive wi th the current claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TERESA E KNIGHT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2840 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9-4 . 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 Maria Leavitt can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1085 . 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. /TERESA E KNIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1634 /CHRISTOPHER M BABIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1633