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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-1 4 , 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mali et al (WO 2019/226710, of record) . Mali et al teach producing vascularized tissue constructs by producing a network structure comprised of a plurality of interconnected filaments of a support polymer (abstract, ¶’s [0106], [0123], Figs 2D, 11D), coating the structure with a protein material (¶’s [0128]-[0129] , Fig. 1C ) , colonizing the structure with endothelial cells and tissue forming cells (¶ [0130], Fig. 1A, 1C), and dissolving the structures to form the tissue (¶ [0108]). The process comprises placing the filament structures on a carrier coated with a degradable matrix followed by evacuation or detachment of the filament structures (¶ [0125], Figs 1A, 1C). The coating and addition of cells can occur after dissolution of the network filaments (¶ [0169]-[0171]). The network structure may be 3D printed without binding to a solid substrate (¶ [0132]). The support polymer may be alginate that can be dissolved with EDTA ( ¶ [0125 ) . Two of the vascularized layers can be joined into a tissue cubes or grids, considered to be “blocks” (¶ [0125]). The vascularized tissue be can embedded with a perfusion line in order to supply, e.g. culture media , from a peristaltic pump (¶ ’s [0121]) . One type of cell type disclosed are cardiomyocytes (cardiac muscle cells) , ¶ [0103]. 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. 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, 6, 7 - 9, 11-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mali et al (WO 2019/226710 ) as applied to claim s 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, 17 above, and further in view of Fischer et al (Current Direct. Biomed. Engineer., 2016) . The teachings of Mali et al are as above and applied as before . Mali et al do not teach 3D freeze printing . Fischer et al teach sub-zero 3D “freeze” printing of filaments comprising alginate in the construction of 3D cell scaffolds . See the abstract and Introduction in particular. The claimed method s are essentially disclosed by Mali et al with the exception of the 3D freeze printing limitation. The ordinary skilled artisan, seeking a method prepare vascularized biological tissue , would have been motivated to use 3D freeze printing with the methods of Mali et al because Fischer et al teaches it to be a well- characterized method for forming alginate scaffolds with improved performance . It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to do this because of the known benefit of generating vascularized tissue models as taught by Mali and Fischer et al. Given the teachings of the cited references and the level of skill of the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of applicants’ invention, it must be considered, absent evidence to the contrary, that the ordinary skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5, 10 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Burkhart whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2915 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 . 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. /MICHAEL D BURKHART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638