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 I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected groups II and III there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 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- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2967162 C . CA2967162C . CA 2967162 C discloses several bioink compositions wherein each bioink composition is defined by its individual components using generic language. They then disclose many specific options that may be used in each category. They disclose, “ In certain embodiments, the printing mix comprises an aqueous solution of a gelling polysaccharide and fibres .” (page 3 line 19-20). Furthermore, “ In certain embodiments, said solution of a gelling polysaccharide comprises a cytocompatibility polymer…selected from the group consisting of…collagen . ” (page 4 line 29- 36). Furthermore, “ In certain embodiments, said fibers are sized in the range of 5 pm - 50 pm and 50 - 500 5 pm in length …” (page 7 lines 4-5). Additionally, “ The polymers are typically present in a weight proportion of from 0.5- 20%. (page 13 lines 5-6). They then specify in the examples that, “ Materials were dissolved into deionized water .. .” (page 19 line 32). Additionally, “ In certain embodiments, the printing mix comprises an aqueous solution of a gelling polysaccharide and cells and one or several growth factors . ” (page 3 line 26-27). Finally, “ The shear recovery curves (Fig. 11b) illustrate the recovery of the bioink structure afte r the printing process. (page 21 lines 13-14). In essence, this source discloses all the limitations found in claims 1- 6 , however, the limitations are not disclosed in together under a single embodiment . However, CA 2967162 C discloses teachings and suggestions to include the elements/limitations of claims 1-6 together in a single embodiment, rendering them obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date. CA2967162C discloses a single embodiment containing a solvent and a fiber but does not identify a particular fiber. Later on, they say that certain embodiments can use collage n as the fiber and in another disclosure, they say that fibers are sized in the range of 50-500 pm in length. Therefore, they provide a suggestion/teaching that the bioink comprises collagen fibers in lengths included in the 0.5 to 1000 pm range and that the collagen is dissolved in a solvent (claim 1). They also provide a teaching/suggestion in separate disclosure beginning in the phrase “in certain embodiments” and specify that the fiber is included in weight proportions that fall within 5-30% (w/w) (claim 2). In their examples they teach that all of their materials/compositions are dissolved in DI water (claim 3). In a separate disclosure beginning in the phrase “in certain embodiments” they provide a teaching/suggestion that cells and growth factors can be additional components of the bioink (claims 4-5). They also teach that their bioink compositions are to be used in 3D printing applications and provide an example of a structure created with the bioink (claim 6). 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