DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 6/02/2026 to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 22-24 have been entered. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 29-32. have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 22-28 remain pending, of which claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 22-25 are being considered on their merits. Claims 26-28 remain withdrawn from consideration. References not included with this Office action can be found in a prior action.
The instant claim amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of record, which are withdrawn.
Any other rejections of record not particularly addressed below are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s comments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Devireddy et al. (PLoS ONE (2019), 14(2): e0210250) in view of Wang et al. (Cell Metabolism (2019), 30, 174–189.e1–e5) as evidenced by Laeng et al. (US 7,132,286).
Devireddy teaches a method for differentiating adipogenic progenitor cells (e.g. adipose mesenchymal stem cells, Ad-MSCs), the method comprising: 1) providing canine adipogenic progenitor cells (p7-8, subheading “Isolation of MSCs from canine adipose tissue”), 2) culturing the adipogenic progenitor cells in a chemically-defined serum-free medium DMEM/F12 (which inherently comprises glucose as an energy source, see Laeng at Col. 21, lines 55-62), insulin, hydrocortisone, progesterone, bFGF, EGF, putrescine, lipid concentrate, and ascorbic acid (e.g. Asc-2-P) (Table 1 and the Abstract), and 3) differentiating the canine Ad-MSCs to adipocytes (p9, subheading “Adipogenic differentiation” and Fig. 9C) reading in-part on claim 1 and reading on claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 22. Devireddy teaches adding dexamethasone for osteogenic differentiation (the paragraph spanning p8-9) but does not teach adding any of the inducers of claim 8 to the methods of adipogenic differentiation (p9, subheading “Adipogenic differentiation”), reading on claim 8. Devireddy teaches culturing the Ad-MSCs on a gelatin-coated substrate (p6, subheading “Tissue culture ware”), reading on the embodiments of 2D culture for claims 22 and 23 and reading on the embodiments of a hydrogel and scaffold for claim 23.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Devireddy does not teach indomethacin as a species of PPARγ inhibitor.
Wang teaches a culture medium for differentiating adipogenic progenitor cells comprising indomethacin (the paragraph spanning e2-e3), reading on claims 1 and 14.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to add the indomethacin of Wang to the serum-free culture media and adipogenic progenitor culture and adipogenic differentiation methods of Devireddy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Devireddy and Wang are both related to media and methods of culturing and differentiating of adipogenic progenitor cells. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted). See M.P.E.P. § 2144.06.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devireddy and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elfenbein et al. (US 2020/0140821).
The teachings of Devireddy and Wang are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 24, Devireddy and Wang do not teach further comprising the step of incorporating said cultured adipocyte into a food product for human consumption. Regarding claim 25, Devireddy and Wang do not teach wherein said food product is (i) a cell-culture based fat product or (ii) a cell-culture based meat product that comprises myocytes and/or myotubes.
Elfenbein teaches systems and methods for producing cell cultured food products for human consumption and made from myocytes and adipocytes differentiated from self-renewing cells (Abstract and Fig. 2), reading on claims 24 and 25. Elfenbein teaches a cultured food product comprising myotubes (claim 19), reading on claims 24 and 25. Elfenbein teaches mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose tissue as an exemplary source of self-renewing cells (e.g. a species of adipogenic progenitor cell) cultured in serum free medium (¶0127) and for cultured food production (¶0171), reading on claims 24 and 25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the adipocytes made from adipogenic progenitor cells (i.e. Ad-MSCs) of Devireddy for the mesenchymal stem cells derived from adipose tissue of Elfenbein in Elfenbein’s food products comprising myocytes and/or myotubes and for human consumption. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Devireddy and Elfenbein are in-part directed towards methods of differentiating adipogenic progenitor cells (e.g. adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells) into adipocytes and utilizing serum-free culture media. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the simple substitution of one known source of adipocytes differentiating from adipose mesenchymal stem cells according to Elfenbein for known source of adipocytes differentiated from mesenchymal stem cells according to Devireddy would predictably yield a food product for human consumption according to Elfenbein and comprising of adipocytes differentiated from mesenchymal stem cells. See M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(B).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 10-13 of the reply have been fully considered, but not found persuasive of error for the reasons given below.
On pages 10-11 of the reply, Applicant alleges that Devireddy is deficient by not teaching the culture medium of claim 1. This is not found persuasive of error as Table 1 of Devireddy expressly teaches that Devireddy’s culture medium comprises insulin, hydrocortisone, progesterone, bFGF, EGF, putrescine, lipid concentrate, and ascorbic acid (e.g. Asc-2-P), and the evidentiary teachings of Laeng make clear that Devireddy’s DMEM/F12 base culture medium inherently comprises glucose. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually on pages 11-12 of the reply, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applicant’s arguments over Wang are not persuasive because Wang is not applied alone under any 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection but in combination with Devireddy under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the claimed invention becomes prima facie obvious when the references are considered together as a whole rather than each alone. Applicant’s characterization of Devireddy’s culture medium as “only suitable for expansion” is factually incorrect as Devireddy uses the same serum-free medium of Table 1 in the in vitro cell differentiation methods (see page 8). As such, Applicant’s further conclusion of hindsight reasoning on page 12 of the reply is not persuasive as Applicant has not set forth what elements of the obviousness rejection of record could only have been gleaned from the instant Application.
On page 12 of the reply, Applicants rely on arguments traversing the above rejection over claim 1 over Devireddy and Wang as evidenced by Laeng to traverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23, and the rejection of dependent claims 24 and 25 further in view of Elfenbein. Therefore, the response set forth above to arguments also applies to this rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed. No claims are free of the art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C BARRON whose telephone number is (571)270-5111. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EDT/EST (M-F).
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 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.
/Sean C. Barron/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights