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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13, 16 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Therefore, claims 2, 3, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by PL 242615.
PL teaches that adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ADSC stems cells) are used to treat inclusion body myositis, see entire reference, especially pages 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, and the claims. PL also teaches that ADSC stem cells are isolated from human adipose tissue. A collagenase solution was used to digest the adipose tissue to extract the progenitor cells. Clearly a closed system was used because sterile bottles were used. Note that adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ADSC stems cells) are the same as adipose derived regenerative cells. Note centrifugation was also used to concentrate the cells.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 242615.
PL teaches that adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ADSC stems cells) are used to treat inclusion body myositis, see entire reference, especially pages 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, and the claims. PL also teaches that ADSC stem cells are isolated from human adipose tissue. A collagenase solution was used to digest the adipose tissue to extract the progenitor cells. Clearly a closed system was used because sterile bottles were used. Note that adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ADSC stems cells) are the same as adipose derived regenerative cells. Note centrifugation was also used to concentrate the cells. Note on page 12 that a computer driven (software driven) computer analysis was used making it obvious to use software driven electro-mechanical centrifuge for separation and concentrating the cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to inject the adipose derived stem/stromal cells (ADSC stems cells) into the muscles of the patient since clearly muscles were being treated in PL. To inject specifically into one of the muscles in claim 13 is obvious since all of the muscles are well known muscles which are routinely injected with medications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V MELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-0967. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5:30 pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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 V. MELLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1655
/MICHAEL V MELLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights