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. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Claim Objections Claim s 1 -6 , and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested by the Examiner to delete the reference characters within claims 1-5 . Limitations s uch as “LI to Ln” and “T1 to Tm” are confusing going from “1” to “m” , for instance, a nd “(LI to Ln)” equat ing to “at least three tiers” for instance . Regarding claim 1 , “a left half and right half, both halves are arranged ” , should be changed to “a left half and a right half, where in both halves are arranged ” . “ wherein said stimulation coil (1) having” should be changed to “and wherein said stimulation coil has”. “ this reverse region” should be changed to “said reverse region”. Regarding claim 4 , “wherein in the reverse region the individual conductor turns ” should be changed to “wherein in the reverse region , the individual conductor turns ” . Regarding claim 5 , “in the direction away from the central region in the direction away ” should be changed to “in the direction away from the central region and in the direction away ” . Regarding claim 6 , it should be rewritten similarly to claim 5, such as, “wherein both winding halves are inclined at an angle of about 10 degrees in the direction away from the central region and in the direction away from the side intended for performing the stimulation”. Regarding claim 9 , a comma should be inserted between “half-axes of the ellipse” and “from the side intended ” . A comma should also be inserted between “performing the stimulation ” and “so that the outside points ” . “ form a line having with the plane of stimulation an angle of approximately 45 degrees” should be changed to “form a line with the plane of stimulation having an angle of approximately 45 degrees”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1- 9 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. Regarding claim 1 , it recites the limitation “wherein the ellipse of at least the outer turn is having the ratio of radiuses of its half-axes in the range from 0.3 to 1.0”, however it is unclear what the metric is for the ratio of radiuses of the half-axes. It is best understood as the turns having a ratio of the semi-axes of the ellipse, forming a deformation caused by the linear course of the turns in the central region. Claim 1 also recites the limitations : "the conductor rotation", in line 11 “the central region”, in line 13 “the ellipse”, in line 16 “the outer turn”, in line 16 “the ratio of radiuses” , in line 16 “the region of both mutually opposite more distant vertices”, in line 19 “the smallest”, in line 21 “the individual tiers”, in line 22 “the region of the vertices of the longer-half axes” and “the longer-half-axes”, in lines 22-23 “the side”, in line 23 “the previous tier” and “the direction from the side ”, in line 24 There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The term “ arranged tightly ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “a central region” is the same as or different than “the central region” recited in line 13. The term “ arranged tightly ” is not defined by the claim and is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. T he specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of how tight the windings are arranged is unclear. Regarding claim 2 , it recites the limitation, “substantially spherical depression ”, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the winding is bent to form a spherical depression. Claim 2 also recites the limitation, “the greatest depth”, however it is unclear what it is relative to. Claim 3 is also rejected due to its dependency on claim 2. Regarding claim 3 , it recites the limitation, “maximum depth of about 1 cm”, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the maximum depth of the spherical depression is. Regarding claim 4 , it recites the limitations "the individual conductor turns" and “the area of both mutually opposite more distant vertices of the ellipse”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Claim 4 also recites the limitation, “at most three diameters”, which is unclear. It is also unclear which conductor “this conductor” is referencing. Regarding claim 5 , it recites the limitations, "the direction away from the central region” and “the direction away from the side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Claim 6 is also rejected due to its dependency on claim 5. Regarding claim 6 , it recites the limitation, “by an angle of about 10 degrees”, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the windings are inclined. Regarding claim 7 , it recites the limitation, “ratio of the half-axes of the ellipse is about 0.6 to 0.7”, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 7 also recites “about 0.6 to 0.7”, however it is unclear what the metric is for the ratio of the half-axes of the ellipse is. It is best understood as the turns having a ratio of the semi-axes of the ellipse, forming a deformation caused by the linear course of the turns in the central region. Regarding claim 9 , it recites the limitations, "the widening”, “the outside points” and “their circumferences” and “the plane of stimulation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Claim 9 also recites “wherein the widening of the individual turns of every further tier is realized”, however it is unclear what “is realized” imparts to the claim. This renders the claim indefinite. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zangen (WO 2019150 378 A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Zangen teaches a magnetic stimulation coil (“electromagnetic coil assembly for inducing electromagnetic fields”, abstract; coil assembly 10, Fig. 1) having a winding consisting of: Two symmetrical halves , a left half and a right half, both halves are arranged next to each other and pressed against each other (wing/lobe 11 and 12 shown in Fig. 6) The winding of each half of the stimulation coil is formed by a set of turns (“the coil assembly comprising a plurality of windings”, abstract, shown in Fig. 1 and 6) made of a conductor (“coil is made from an electrically conducting wire (e.g., made of Copper)”, paragraph 3, page 4), wherein said stimulation coil having one side intended for performing the stimulation wherein: Each half of the winding is formed by at least three tiers , of turns, arranged on each other (“where each ring/group comprises two or more wire turns”, paragraph 6, page 14; at least three tiers of winding shown in Fig. 5 and 6), n corresponding to the number of tiers , m corresponding to the number of turns of said conductor in a given tier ( “ring groups r1, r2…” shown in Fig. 5 and 6) Wherein each tier is formed by a group of turns of the conductor , all the tiers of each half of said winding are connected in series (“coil comprising a plurality of windings (also referred to herein as loops) electrically connected in series”, paragraph 4, page 3) and have the same direction of the conductor rotation (windings of conductor shown in Fig. 5 and 6 ), Wherein said direction of conductor rotation is opposite in each half (“windings of a first wing/lobe…spiral in clockwise direction…windings of a second wing/lobe…spiral in a counterclockwise direction”, paragraph 4, page 4) of the winding to ensure the same direction of current passing through the turns of the winding in the central region in both halves of the winding (“similar magnetic flux directions can be applied by the wings/lobes central segments”, paragraph 4, page 4) The turns of the conductor are arranged in an elliptical shape in each tier of the winding (“windings/loops have an elliptic shape”, paragraph 6, page 4), Wherein the turns of the conductor of the winding are arranged into a central region ( “multiple stimulating elements are distributed around a central axis of the coil”, paragraph 2, page 3; intermediate wire segment 11-12, Fig. 6 ) , in which the turns are arranged tightly next to each other ( “windings/loops of each group of the two or more serially connected groups”, paragraph 6, page 14; tightly arrangement shown in annotated Fig. 6 below ) , and into a reverse region , the turns are in this reverse region (shown in annotated Fig. 6 below) , at least in the region of both mutually opposite more distant vertices of the ellipse , spaced apart from each other by a gap having the size of at least a half of the smallest of the dimensions of the conductor cross-section (shown in annotated Fig. 6 below) The turns of the conductor in the individual tiers widen in the region of the vertices (widening of the turns shown in annotated Fig. 6 above) of the longer-half-axes of the ellipse from the side intended for performing the stimulation, with regard to the turns of the winding in the previous tier, in the direction from the side intended for performing the magnetic stimulation Zangen does not teach the ratio of radiuses of its half-axes in the range from 0.3 to 1.0, wherein the turns of the conductor of the winding are arranged into a central region. Zangen does teach the spacing between adjacent groups/rings of windings/loops have a diameter of “0.3 to 1 cm”, but also can be “6.5 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 9 cm” in paragraph 6, page 4. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that presenting the range of the ratio of radiuses would result in a difference in function in the magnetic stimulation coil of Zangen . Furthermore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed measurements. Applicant has also not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, or providing metrics or values and therefore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radiuses of the half-axes to have a ratio in the range from 0.3 to 1 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Zangen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as the turns of the individual tiers of the winding are bent in the central region to form a substantially spherical depression having the greatest depth in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 cm, or a maximum depth of about 1 cm (“coils are configured to generate a magnetic field…inside the subject’s head…at a distance of about 0.5 to 3 cm from the windings of the applicator coil portions”, paragraph 4, page 3) on the side intended for performing the stimulation (windings are bent in the central region to create a depression on the side intended to perform stimulation to the patient shown in Fig. 6). Regarding claim 4 , Zangen teaches the reverse region of the individual conductor turns of each winding half being spaced apart from each other at least in the area of both mutually opposite more distant vertices of the ellipse (reverse region of windings halves shown spaced apart in Fig. 6 ). Zangen does not explicitly teach the winding halves being spaced apart from each other to at most three diameters of the conductor, however Zangen does teach the spacing being between 0.3 to 1 cm ( “the spacing between adjacent groups/rings of concentric windings/loops…can be about 0.3 to 1 cm”, paragraph 6, page 4”). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably modify the spacing of each winding half of Zangen with the claimed range of at most three diameters of the conductor achieve the most optimal arrangement for providing magnetic stimulation treatment to a patient and ensuring the windings are arranged tightly as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. Furthermore, it is notable that the claimed ranges do not have disclosed criticality within the applicant’s disclosure. Regarding claim s 5 and 6 , Zangen teaches both winding halves being inclined at an angle of 5 to 20 degrees or about 10 degrees in the direction away from the central region in the direction and away from the side intended for performing the stimulation (“orientation of the wings 16w can be configured to define tilt angle between wound wings/lobes 11 and 12”, paragraph 4, page 14; winding halves at inclined angle shown in Fig. 4) . The orientation of the winding halves can be configured to any angle such as 5 to 20 degrees, or 10 degrees. Regarding claim 7 , Zangen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the ratio of the half-axes of the ellipse being about 0.6 to 0.7. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that presenting the range of the ratio of the half-axes of the ellipse would result in a difference in function in the magnetic stimulation coil of Zangen . Zangen does teach the spacing between adjacent groups/rings of windings/loops have a diameter of “0.3 to 1 cm”, but also can be “6.5 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 9 cm” in paragraph 6, page 4. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed measurements. Applicant has also not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, or providing metrics or values and therefore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of the half-axes of the ellipse to have a ratio in the range from 0.6 to 0.7 as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Regarding claim 8 , Zangen teaches each half of the windings having 4 tiers (“where each ring/group comprises two or more wire turns”, paragraph 6, page 14; four tiers of winding shown in Fig. 5 and 6 ). Regarding claim 9 , Zangen teaches the widening of the individual turns of every further tier being realized in the region of the vertices of the longer half-axes of the ellipse (widening tiers as it goes further down shown in Fig. 6) , from the side intended for performing the stimulation, so that th e outside points of their circumferences form a line with the plane of stimulation (“the intermediate portions of the windings/loops can be parallel to each other and pass along lateral parallel planes”, paragraph 2, page 7). Zangen does not teach the plane of stimulation having an angle of approximately 45 degrees. Zangen does teach the descending windings being parallel to each other, which creates an angle (“elevated portions of the peripheral loops laterally pass…in a form of interfolding arc patterns”, paragraph 3, page 7). Zangen also teaches the structure in a tilted conformation, “wings/lobes in tilted conformation of one wing/lobe with respect to the other (e.g., with an angle of about 120 ° to 140 ° ”, page 5, paragraph 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably modify the angle of the plane of stimulation of Zangen to be approximately 45 degrees to achieve the most optimal arrangement for providing magnetic stimulation treatment to a patient while ensuring it fits comfortably around the head as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. Furthermore, it is notable that the claimed ranges do not have disclosed criticality within the applicant’s disclosure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:00pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Valvis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712724233 . 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. /L.L.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791