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 Group I, claims 2, 4, 7-14, and 30, in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 15-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2023, 02/24/2023, 08/25/2025, and 09/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “15” has been used to two different structures in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim s 2, 4, 7, 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. ( Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn ) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ). Note: All claims currently under examination ultimately depend on independent claim 30 ; claims will generally be addressed in order of scope rather than numerical order. Regarding claim 30, Inui et al. discloses a kit (called “experimental setup”, the experimental setup comprises various separate components which can be assembled and disassembled during operation, see p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2 and Fig. 3, p. 578, and thus reads on a kit) comprising: an ultrasonic device (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) comprising: a housing (comprising support plate upon which ultrasonic transduce r is placed, support pillars surrounding the transducer, and pool placed upon support pillars, Fig. 3, p. 578) comprising an ultrasonic surface (called pool) (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578), the housing having an aperture (see aperture in pool through which ultrasonic horn extends, p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2, Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578); an ultrasonic transducer disposed within the housing (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Fig. 3, p. 578) ; and an ultrasonic horn having a face protruding through the aperture (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578), the ultrasonic horn providing focused energy from the ultrasonic transducer to the ultrasonic surface (pool) (p. 576 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578); and a cell culture container operatively connected to the ultrasonic device (Abstract, p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578) , the cell culture container configured to contain cultured cells configured to be used for a medical or research application (p. 575 col. 1 para. 1-p. 576 col. 1 para. 4, p. 582 col. 1 para. 4). Inui et al. is silent as to: the ultrasonic transducer operating at a frequency of between 25kHz and 100 kHz (rather, Inui et al. discloses 19.84 kHz , see Abstract , for the purpose of detaching cells from the container, see Fig. 1 ), and the cell culture container comprising a microcavity substrate for generating spheroids or organoids . As to the limitation regarding the operating frequency, Goldsborough et al. discloses applying ultrasonic energy to release cells (para. 14) by means of an ultrasonic transducer operating at an operating frequency (para. 290) . Goldsborough et al. further discloses that lowering the frequency increases the mechanical force created (para. 290) and that the operating frequency is preferably in the range of 20 to 40 kHz (para. 287) to effectively release cells without generating excess debris (para. 25) , although the frequency can be adjusted based on cell type and the degree of cell release desired (para. 287). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim range of between 25 kHz and 100 kHz, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable ( MPEP §2144.05). In this case, general conditions are disclosed in the prior art and the frequency is recognized as a result-effective variable, as embodied by Inui et al. and Goldsborough et al., above. As to the limitation of the microcavity substrate, Fang et al. discloses a cell culture container, such as a flask, plate, or dish, comprising a microcavity substrate for generating spheroids (para. 9). Fang et al. discloses that it is advantageous to culture cells as spheroids because spheroids exhibit in-vivo functionality more accurately (para. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell culture container disclosed by Inui et al. to comprise a microcavity substrate for generating spheroids, as Fang et al. discloses that it was known in the art to incorporate such a substrate into a cell culture container to generate spheroids so as to model in-vivo functionality more accurately, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to culture cell with more in-vivo functionality to enhance the experimental and clinical utility of the device. Regarding claim 2, Inui et al. discloses wherein the ultrasonic transducer is a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer (a Langevin transducer is a type of piezoelectric transducer) (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2). Regarding claim 4, Inui et al. discloses the cell culture container, as set forth above. Inui et al. is silent as to the cell culture container comprising a microcavity plate, microcavity flask, or multilayered microcavity cell culture vessel . However, Inui et al. in view of Fang et al. teaches wherein the cell culture container comprises a microcavity substrate, and Fang et al. discloses that such cell culture containers may be formed as a plate or a dish, as set forth above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cell culture container taught by the prior art combination to comprise a microcavity plate or microcavity flask, in order to arrive at a cell culture configuration recognized in the art to be suitable for culturing spheroids. Regarding claim 7, Inui et al. discloses the ultrasonic transducer having an operating frequency and Goldsborough et al. teaches using an operating frequency of 20 to 40 kHz to effectively release cells without generating excessive debris, as set forth above. Although the prior art combination does not expressly teach a single ultrasonic frequency value of 40 kHz, this subject matter nonetheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select any single frequency value within the range of 20 to 40 kHz as taught by Goldsborough et al. in order to provide a frequency suitable for releasing cells while avoiding excessive debris. Regarding claim 14, Inui et al. discloses wherein the ultrasonic device is a small tabletop device having dimensions on the order of millimeters (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Fig. 3, p. 578). Inui et al. does not expressly teach wherein the ultrasonic device is portable. Nonetheless, it has been held that the fact that a claimed device is portable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over the prior art unless there are new or unexpected results ( MPEP 2144.04), and therefore, this limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ), as applied to claim 30, above, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022 / 0112481 ). Regarding claim 8, Inui et al. discloses the ultrasonic device, as set forth above. Inui et al. further discloses controlling an output of the ultrasonic transducer (p. 578 col. 1 para. 3); however, Inui et al. is silent as to the structural mechanism for doing so. Inui et al. is silent as to wherein the ultrasonic device further comprises an ultrasonic power driver board. Zhao et al. discloses an ultrasonic device comprising an ultrasonic transducer for applying vibration to a tissue sample (Abstract, para. 113), the ultrasonic device further comprising an ultrasonic power driver board configured to control an output of the ultrasonic transducer (para. 57, 66-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic device disclosed by Inui et al. to comprise an ultrasonic power driver board, based on the teachings of Zhao et al., to allow a user greater control over the function of the ultrasonic transducer during operation. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ), as applied to claim 30, above, and in further view of Yuan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006 / 0121603 ). Regarding claim 9, Inui et al. discloses the housing, as set forth above, and further discloses providing power to the ultrasonic transducer (p. 578 col. 1 para. 3). Inui et al. is silent as to wherein a power switch is disposed on a surface of the housing. Yuan et al. discloses a device configured to treat cells with ultrasonic energy (Abstract), the device comprising a housing and a power switch disposed on a surface of the housing ( para. 16) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing disclosed by Inui et al. to comprise a power switch disposed on a surface thereof, as taught by Yuan et al., in order to provide a mechanism for powering the ultrasonic device on and off. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ), as applied to claim 30, above, and in further view of Henley (US Patent Application Publication 2016 / 0230145 ). Regarding claim 10, Inui et al. discloses the housing, as set forth above, and further discloses providing power to the ultrasonic transducer during operation (p. 578 col. 1 para. 3). Inui et al. is silent as to wherein indicator lights are disposed on a surface of the housing. Henley discloses a device for applying ultrasonic waves to cells within a container (Abstract), the device comprising a panel including indicator lights disposed on a surface therefor for indicating various operational states of the device (para. 87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing disclosed by Inui et al. to comprise indicator lights disposed on a surface thereof, as taught by Henley, in order to inform a user of an operational status of the device. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ), as applied to claim 30, above, and in further view of Mao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020 / 0095572 ). Regarding claim 11, Inui et al. discloses wherein the cell culture container is placed on the ultrasonic surface (pool) (p. 577 col. 2 para. 2-p. 578 col. 1 para. 2) (Figs. 1 and 3, pp. 577-578). Inui et al. is silent as to activation switches on the ultrasonic surface. Mao et al. discloses a device for handling biological samples contained within containers (para. 3-4 , 13 ) , the device comprising a platform for receiving a container and a switch configured to detect the presence of a container on the platform and trigger operation of the device (thus the switch reads on an activation switch) (para. 77-78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic surface disclosed by Inui et al. to comprise activation switches, based on the teachings of Mao et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to trigger operation of the device for treating cells in the cell culture container upon detection of the container for efficient operation. Claim s 12 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. (Method of localized removal of cells using a bolt-clamped Langevin transducer with an ultrasonic horn) in view of Goldsborough et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0231538 ) and Fang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017 / 0342363 ), as applied to claim 30, above, and in further view of Dalecki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012 / 0141552 ). Regarding claim 12, Inui et al. discloses wherein the ultrasonic device provides vibration (Abstract, p. 576 col. 2 para. 3). Inui et al. does not expressly teach wherein the vibration is continuous. Dalecki et al. discloses a device comprising an ultrasonic transducer for applying ultrasound waves to cells within a cell culture chamber (Abstract, para. 9) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 14), wherein the ultrasound waves may be provided continuously or in a pulsed fashion (para. 43, 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic device disclosed by Inui et al. to provide continuous vibration, based on the teachings of Dalecki et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to configure the ultrasound device to provide ultrasonic energy in a manner recognized in the art to be suitable for treating cells. Regarding claim 13, Inui et al. discloses wherein the ultrasonic device provides vibration (Abstract, p. 576 col. 2 para. 3). Inui et al. does not expressly teach wherein the vibration is pulsed. Dalecki et al. discloses a device comprising an ultrasonic transducer for applying ultrasound waves to cells within a cell culture chamber (Abstract, para. 9) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 14), wherein the ultrasound waves may be provided continuously or in a pulsed fashion (para. 43, 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic device disclosed by Inui et al. to provide pulsed vibration, based on the teachings of Dalecki et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to configure the ultrasound device to provide ultrasonic energy in a manner recognized in the art to be suitable for treating cells. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Taylor (US Patent Application Publication 2003 / 0066915 ) is directed to applying ultrasonic waves to a cell sample container using an ultrasonic transducer and an ultrasonic horn located below the container. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0658 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8.30- 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 Michael Marcheschi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721374 . 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. /HOLLY KIPOUROS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799