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 1-24 in the reply filed on 23 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “TMS coil head,” should read –TMS coil head.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
imaging device of claims 2, 11, 19, and 22 (corresponding structure disclosed as a visual light camera, ultraviolet light camera, or an infrared light camera).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 23 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 3 recites the limitation “the coil windings” while parent claim 1 recites “one or more coil windings”. Since “one or more” encompasses one, at least one, or a plurality of, it is unclear how many coil windings applicant intends to require.
The same issue appears in claim 7.
Claims 4 and 5 each recite the limitation “the TMS coils”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “the mounting joint”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a single camera” while parent claim 11 recites “a single imaging device”. It is unclear whether the “single camera” of claim 12 is intended to be the same as the “single imaging device” of claim 11.
Claim 20 recites “the one or more imaging devices external”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for external “one or more imaging devices” in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the patent’s scalp vasculature”, “the patient’s skin patterns”, “the patient’s skull bone structure”, and “the patient’s brain tissue”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil head (5) configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (abstract; Figure 1), wherein the TMS coil head comprises a housing (8a, 8b) containing one or more coil windings (9a, 9b) within the housing (coils configured to stimulate a “target point”, abstract; translation: pg. 4, paragraph 11-12; translation: pg. 5, paragraphs 1 and 3-5; Figure 4). Zhang does not specify the coil head additional comprises a phase change material (PCM) in contact with the one or more windings within the housing.
However, Li teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil head configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (abstract), wherein the TMS coil head comprises a housing (20, 21) containing a coil winding (10) within the housing and a phase change material (50) in contact with the winding within the housing (translation: pg. 4, paragraph 10-pg. 5, paragraph 2; Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil head of Zhang to include a phase change material as taught by Li in order to cool the coil during operation (translation: pg. 5, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches the one or more imaging devices (1a, 1b) including an imaging device located central to a center of the TMS housing, and configured to permit direct imaging of the center of the TMS coil housing on a patient’s head (cameras 1a, 1b are construed as “central to a center of the TMS housing” because they are located near the origin on the y-axis, which passes through the housing origin point, Figure 2; translation: pg. 4, paragraph 13).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Zhang teaches the TMS coil head (5) comprises two coil windings (9a, 9b) located to either side of a center of the TMS coil head; wherein the two coil windings are mirror images of one another (translation: pg. 4, paragraph 13; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as presently modified does not teach the TMS coil head additionally comprises heatsink elements.
However, Li further teaches heatsink elements (60) in contact with the PCM (50) (translation: pg. 4, paragraph 12-pg. 5, paragraph 2; pg. 5, paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TMS coil head of Zhang and Li to include heatsink elements as further taught by Li in order to improve “cold heat exchange” to cool the coil during use (Ishikawa translation: pg. 5, paragraph 6).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0150653 (Borsody).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches the housing has a base and a top (Figure 1), but does not specify the TMS coils are fixed in position around spacers or pegs extending from the base or top.
However, Borsody teaches a TMS coil head configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (abstract; Figures 2, 4), comprising: one or more coil windings (figure 8 coil, 150) disposed in a housing comprising a base and a top, wherein the coil windings are fixed in position around spacers or pegs (144) extending from the base or the top ([0063]; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Zhang as modified such that the coils are fixed in position around spacers or pegs extending from the base or top of the housing as taught by Borsody in order to retain the coils in position and to maximize heat transfer from the coils to a cooling system within the housing (Borsody: [0063]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 108014421 (Wang et al., see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as modified does not teach an ergonomically shaped handle affixed to a top of the TMS coil head.
However, Wang teaches a TMS coil head comprising an ergonomically shaped handle affixed to the top of the TMS coil head (“ergonomic handle”, translation: pg. 3, paragraph 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TMS coil head of Zhang and Li to include an ergonomically shaped handle affixed to the top of the TMS coil head as taught by Wang, in order to permit the practitioner to securely and comfortably grip the handle to direct the TMS coil head (translation: pg. 3, paragraph 11-12).
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0343351 (Tojo).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as modified does not teach a permanent or removable mounting joint, on a top of the coil head, laterally centered on a central vertical axis of the coil windings.
However, Tojo teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system ([0001]; [0047]) comprising: a TMS coil head (10) including a housing and one or more coil windings in the housing, the coil head configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (Figure 1; [0047]; [0049]); and a permanent or removable mounting joint on a top of the coil head, laterally centered on a central vertical axis of the coil windings (“permanent or removable mounting joint” “coil holder 10 holding the coil 2 is secured at a distal end of a holder fixture…11”, [0048]; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TMS coil head of Zhang as modified to include a permanent or removable mounting joint on a top of the coil head, laterally centered on a central vertical axis of the coil windings as taught by Tojo, because providing such a mounting joint allows the coil “to be positioned in an optimal position” for the duration of treatment ([0048]).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as modified does not expressly teach the TMS coil head includes a power cable that can also detach from the TMS coil head, configured to deliver electrical power from a pulse generator to the TMS coil head.
However, Tojo teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system ([0001]; [0047]) comprising: a TMS coil head (10) including a housing and one or more coil windings in the housing, the coil head configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (Figure 1; [0047]; [0049]); and one or more imaging devices including two or more cameras (123, 143) ([0068]-[0069]; Figures 2, 5A-B); and a power cable (4) that can also detach from the TMS coil head, configured to deliver electrical power from a pulse generator to the TMS coil head (The limitation “can also detach from the TMS coil head, configured to deliver electrical power from a pulse generator to the TMS coil head” is functional language. The power cable 4 is coupled to the coil 2 and a stimulation control unit 6, the power cable 4 is “configured to deliver electrical power from a pulse generator to the TMS coil head”. The cable 4 is capable of being detached, for example, by cutting. See [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Zhang as modified to include a power cable that can also detach from the TMS coil head, configured to deliver electrical power from a pulse generator to the TMS coil head as taught by Tojo in order to deliver power to the coil head for operation (Tojo: [0047]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and CN 108014421 (Wang et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0200388 (Schneider et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Li and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Zhang as modified does not teach a complementary part to which the mounting joint connects, has a single action quick release mechanism.
However, Schneider teaches a TMS coil head (abstract) comprising a complementary part connected to a mounting joint on a top of the coil head, wherein the complementary part includes a single action quick release mechanism (articulated arm secured to coil head via “quick-release”, [0070]; Figures 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TMS coil head such that a complementary part to which the mounting joint connects, has a single action quick release mechanism as taught by Schneider to ensure the TMS coil head is secured to the mounting joint on the positioning holder (Schneider: [0070]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as modified teaches a neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation system comprising a TMS coil head as claimed in claim 1 (see discussion for claim 1). Zhang as modified does not expressly disclose the TMS system includes a pulse generator.
However, Gleich teaches a TMS system (abstract; [0001]; [0173]), comprising: a pulse generator (2) ([0006]; [0089]; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TMS system of Zhang as modified to include a pulse generator as taught by Gleich in order to permit a practitioner to generate a pulse sequence with adjustable stimulation parameters “to generate a complex pulse sequence” to be “applied to a stimulation coil in order to generate the magnetic field” to provide TMS treatment to a patient ([0006]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Zhang as modified teaches one or more imaging devices (1a, 1b) including a single imaging device (1a) located central to a center of the TMS coil head (5) and configured to permit direct imaging of the center of the TMS coil head on the patient’s head (cameras 1a, 1b are construed as “central to a center of the TMS housing” because they are located near the origin on the y-axis, which passes through the housing origin point, Figure 2; translation: pg. 4, paragraph 13; The limitation “to permit direct imaging of the center of the TMS coil head on the patient’s head” is functional language. Since the “TMS coil head” 5 is capable of being moved relative to the patient’s head during positioning, the “single camera” 1a is capable of being placed so as to overlie stimulation target point 10 to permit direct visualization of the “TMS coil head” 5 position relative to the target position 10 on the patient’s head. See translation: pg. 5, paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 6; Figures 1 and 4.).
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0366773 (Kiraly).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Zhang teaches the imaging devices include two “cylindrical industrial endoscopes” (“Specific execution examples”, description of Figure 1, page 4 of machine translation). Zhang does not specify the type of cameras in the endoscopes.
However, Kiraly teaches an endoscope comprising a visible light imaging camera (abstract; [0005]; [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endoscope cameras of Zhang as modified to each include the visible light camera of Kiraly, because Kiraly teaches an endoscopic visible light camera permits the tissue to be viewed in optical images by a practitioner ([0031]).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Li, Gleich, and Kiraly teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Zhang as modified teaches the one or more imaging devices (1a, 1b) are configured to transmit an image of the patient’s scalp vasculature, the patient’s skin patterns, the patient’s skull bone structure, or the patient’s brain tissue (image guided positioning of racket 5, see “Specific execution examples”, description of Figure 1 and description of “third step”, translation: pg. 3-4).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0343351 (Tojo).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Zhang as modified does not teach the one or more imaging devices also comprises two or more cameras located to sides of the TMS coil head, away from the center but within the housing of the TMS coil head.
However, Tojo teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system ([0001]; [0047]) comprising: a TMS coil head (10) including a housing and one or more coil windings in the housing, the coil head configured to be placed over a target brain region for treatment (Figure 1; [0047]; [0049]); and one or more imaging devices including two or more cameras (123, 143) located to sides of the TMS coil head, away from the center but within the housing (10) ([0068]-[0069]; Figures 2, 5A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Zhang as modified to include two more cameras located away from the center but within the housing of the TMS coil head as taught by Tojo, because such a configuration further improves positioning accuracy of the coil(s).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0015995 (Leung).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Zhang as modified does not teach the system includes one or more accelerometers configured to sense orientation placement or changes in orientation of the TMS coil head.
However, Leung teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system (abstract; [0002]) comprising: a TMS coil head (102) placed over the target region for treatment (Figure 1; [0030]; [0032]); and one or more accelerometers configured to sense orientation placement and/or changes in orientation of the TMS coil head (102) ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Zhang as modified to include the accelerometer to sense orientation placement and changes in orientation of the TMS coil head of Leung, because Leung teaches providing such an accelerometer permits sensing “orientation, vibration, shock and falling in order to turn off the device during deviations from treatment locale” to protect the device and the user ([0039]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0060659 (Ginhoux).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Zhang as modified does not teach the TMS coil head comprises one or more contact sensors configured to detect contact and force between the TMS coil head and the patient's head; wherein the contact sensors comprise one or more force-sensitive resistors, one or more capacitive touch sensors or one or more ultrasonic position/touch sensors.
However, Ginhoux teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system comprising (abstract; [0001]; [0090]), comprising: a TMS coil head (2); and a contact sensor (1) configured to detect contact and force between the TMS coil head (2) and a patient’s head ([0009]; [0090]; [0108]; Figure 6A); wherein the contact sensor (1) comprises a force-sensitive resistor ([0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang as modified to include a force-sensitive resistor contact sensor detecting contact and force between the coil and the patient’s head as taught by Ginhoux, because Ginhoux teaches providing such a contact sensor permits informing “the user about the intensity of the pressure applied to the sensor so that the contact is soft and painless for the patient” ([0109]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0015588 (Tamiya).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Zhang as modified does not teach the system comprises one or more imaging devices external to the TMS coil head, and configured to permit simultaneous visualization of the patient’s head as well as the TMS coil head; wherein the one or more imaging devices external to the one or more TMS coil head comprises one or more cameras, one or more LIDAR detectors, or one or more ultrasonic detectors.
However, Tamiya teaches a neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation system (abstract; [0058]), comprising a pulse generator (3) (Figure 1; [0058]); a TMS coil (2) (Figure 1; [0058]); and one or more imaging devices including a camera (8) configured to permit simultaneous visualization of the patient's head as well as the TMS coil head (2) (Figure 1; [0059]; [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang as modified to include a camera for simultaneously visualizing the patient’s head and the TMS coil head as taught by Tamiya, because Tamiya teaches providing a camera for visualizing the TMS coil head and the patient’s head simultaneously improves the accuracy of the TMS coil head position ([0070]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0184601 (Gleich) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,286,222 (Nishikawa).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Li and Gleich teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Zhang as modified does not teach the system comprises a memory device configured to create a record of the TMS coil head position before and during treatment.
However, Nishikawa teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation system (abstract; col. 9, lines 6-22) comprising: a TMS coil head (11) configured to be placed over the target brain region for treatment (Figure 1; col. 9, lines 9-22); and a memory device (23) configured to create a record of the TMS coil head position before and during treatment (Figure 3; col. 11, lines 11-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang as modified to include a memory device for creating a record of the TMS coil head positions before and during treatment as taught by Nishikawa, because Nishikawa teaches providing such a memory device for storing the TMS coil position ensures the coil is optimally positioned for a treatment session and for subsequent sessions (col. 11, lines 11-18).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107648734 (Zhang, see attached machine translation) in view of CN 113559416 (Li et al., see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of EP 1092451 (Ishkawa et al.).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang as modified teaches the PCM is formed of ceramic (translation: pg. 5, paragraph 2). Zhang does not teach the PCM further includes thermally conductive materials selected from the group consisting of metal fines, preferably copper, tin or aluminum, carbon allotropes preferably graphite or graphene, or a thermal paste.
However, Ishkawa teaches a magnetic stimulation system (abstract), comprising a housing containing a coil (55) and a phase change material (57a), wherein the phase change material includes aluminum, copper, or carbon radiating fins ([0029]-[0030]; Figure 6B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic phase change material of Zhang as modified to be formed of a metal, such as copper or aluminum, as taught by Ishkawa, as ceramic, copper, and aluminum are suitable alternative thermally conductive materials for radiating heat, as recognized by the cited art (Li: ceramic, pg. 5, paragraph 2; Ishkawa: [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights