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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the casing recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 4-5 and 7are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, “coil, comprises” should read “coil, comprising”
In claim 5, line 1, “claim 4, a shape of” should read “claim 4, wherein a shape of”
In claim 7, line 1 “stimulator, comprises” should read “stimulator, comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the metal conduit or a multi-stranded wire is configured to be energized and generate a magnetic field” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the multi-stranded wire is required by the claim. The claim further appears to refer to the multi-stranded wire as an alternative to the metal conduit, which is previously positively recited without any alternative. For examination purposes, the limitation will read as though the metal conduit which may conceivably be a multi-stranded wire, is configured to generate a magnetic field.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation" and “the insulating tube” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim appears to be intended as a dependent claim referencing claim 1, and is read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “The wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation” and “the insulating tube” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim appears to be intended as a dependent claim referencing claim 1, and is read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a wire coil reeled with the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the claimed “wire coil” is intended to be a separate structure unrelated to “the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation”. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as though “the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation” is coiled; thus, denoting only one claimed coiled wire.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a shape of the wire coil is any of circular, splayed, conical, dual-conical, dual-conical and splayed shape with an included angle” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if each disclosed shape must have the “included angle” or if the splayed shape distinctly requires the included angle. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as though the splayed shape is the only shape that necessitates the included angle.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as
indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite claims.
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) 1-7 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (CN 109091758).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. teaches a wire (page 4, para. 1, “copper wire”) for transcranial magnetic stimulation (page 2, para. 4, “transcranial magnetic stimulation”; page 4, para. 3, “magnetic stimulation” “scalp” “head”), configured for making a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil (Fig. 2, magnetic stimulation coil strand wound 1; page 3, para. 6, “the magnetic stimulation coil”) comprising:
an insulating tube (page 4, para. 5, “thin wall Teflon pipe…Teflon is a high performance insulating material”) and a metal conduit sleeved over the insulating tube (see Modified Fig. 3);
the insulating tube is a hollow structure (page 5, para. 3, “the cooled liquid medium flows through the Teflon pipe”),
an inner portion of the insulation tube is configured for circulation and flowing of liquids or gases (page 5, para. 3, “cooling liquid”), and
the metal conduit or a multi-stranded wire is configured to be energized and generate a magnetic field (page 3, para. 4, “stimulation efficiency and stimulating amount”; page 4, para. 1, “magnetic field”).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
Regarding claim 2, Wei et al. teaches the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation according to claim 1 as stated above wherein a cross section of the insulating tube is any rectangular, circular, and oval (shown in Figure 3, the cross section of the Teflon tube 3 is circular).
Regarding claim 3, Wei et al. teaches the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the insulating tube is made of flexible materials (“Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene)”, recited in claim 2, is flexible).
Regarding claim 4, Wei et al. teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil (Fig. 2, magnetic stimulation coil strand wound 1; page 3, para. 5, “the magnetic stimulation coil”), comprises a casing (see Modified Figure 2) and a wire coil reeled with the wire for transcranial magnetic stimulation (Fig. 3, where the magnetic stimulation coil 1 comprises the Teflon tube 3 and the wound metal conduit 4) as defined in claim 1; a shape of the casing is adaptive to a shape of the wire coil and the casing is configured for housing the wire coil (Fig. 2; page 4, para. 3, “cap-coil”).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
1040
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2
Regarding claim 5, Wei et al. teaches the transcranial magnetic stimulation coil according to claim 4 as stated above wherein a shape of the wire coil is any of circular, splayed, conical, dual-conical and splayed shape with an included angle (Fig. 2, where the magnetic stimulation coil is conical).
Regarding claim 6, Wei et al. teaches the transcranial magnetic stimulation coil according to claim 4 as stated above wherein the casing is made from insulating materials (page 5, para. 14, “stimulating coil outer wrapped with heat-insulated asbestos material”; see modified Figure 2 where the magnetic stimulation coil 1 comprises a casing).
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al. teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulator (page 4, para. 3, “magnetic stimulation” “scalp” “head”; Fig. 1), comprising the transcranial stimulation coil as defined in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips (GB 2459157) teaches a magnetic stimulator for the brain wherein the insulating tube sheathes the metal conduit. Kim et al. (KR 100841596) discloses a cooling device coupled to a cooling liquid storage tank adapted for a magnetic stimulator. Fujimoto et al. (WO 2016171131) teaches a coil device for magnetic stimulation treatments but does not specifically disclose an insulating tube within the conductive wiring. Vaidya (US 2021/0008382) teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil supplemented with a display. Sun et al. (CN 101947359) teaches a method for cooling a magnetic field stimulator which constitutes a cooling coil. Talebinejad and Musallam (2010) disclose a TMS coil design with an insulated Litz wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791