DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 7/16/2026. Claims 9-13 and 21-31 are acknowledged as pending with claims 9-13 being currently amended, claims 21-31 being new, and claims 1-8 and 14-20 being cancelled.
The claim objections, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn as having been overcome by the amendment. New rejections necessitated by the amendment are presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3, the abbreviated term “AT” should be completely defined. Please refer to line 1 of the now canceled claim 1, where the applicant previously defined “AT”. Applicant is advised to provide a complete definition of “AT” as they did previously in the now canceled claim.
In claim 23, line 1, “the coil holder” should read “the non-metal coil holder”
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 9-13 and 21-31 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.
The term “about” in claim 9, line 9 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the width and height of each winding layer to be within the range of 0.5-5 mm and 0.5 mm- 2.5 cm, respectively, or not. For examination purposes, “a width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm – 2.5 cm, respectively” will be read as “a width and height of each winding layer is in a range from 0.5-5 mm and 0.5 mm – 2.5 cm, respectively”.
The term “about” in claim 9, line 12 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angle to be within the range of 0° to 80°, or not. For examination purposes, “a tilting angle of about 0° to about 80°” will be read as “a tilting angle of 0° to 80°”.
The term “about” in claim 9, line 14 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angle to be 0°, or not. For examination purposes, “the tilting angle of at least one of the AT coil devices is about 0°” will be read as “the tilting angle of at least one of the AT coil devices is 0°”.
The term “about” in claim 9, lines 15-17 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angles to be between 10° and 80°, or not. For examination purposes, “having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°” will be read as “having tilting angles between 10° and 80°”.
The term “about” in claim 13, line 2 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angle to be 0°, or not. For examination purposes, “the tilting angle of four of the AT coil devices is about 0°” will be read as “the tilting angle of four of the AT coil devices is 0°”.
The term “about” in claim 13, line 4 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angles to be between 10° and 80°, or not. For examination purposes, “having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°” will be read as “having tilting angles between 10° and 80°”.
The term “about” in claim 23, line 2 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the coil holder outer diameter to be within the range of 1 to 40 cm, or not. For examination purposes, “a range from about 1 cm to about 40 cm” will be read as “a range from 1 cm to 40 cm”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a dedicated mechanical frame” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether “a dedicated mechanical frame” is synonymous to the previously recited “mechanical frame” in claim 9, line 3, or if “a dedicated mechanical frame” is a different technical feature entirely. For examination purposes, the “dedicated mechanical frame” recited in claim 25 and the “mechanical frame” recited in claim 9 are being treated as identical technical features.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a holder” in line 1. It is unclear whether “a holder” is synonymous to the previously recited “non-metal coil holder” in claim 9, line 5, or if “a holder” is a different technical feature entirely. For examination purposes, “a holder” is being treated as a separate technical feature.
The term “about” in claim 29, line 2 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angle to be 0°, or not. For examination purposes, “the tilting angle of one of the AT coil devices is about 0°” will be read as “the tilting angle of one of the AT coil devices is 0°”.
The term “about” in claim 29, line 3 is 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 what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the tilting angles to be between 10° and 80°, or not. For examination purposes, “having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°” will be read as “having tilting angles between 10° and 80°”.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 21-31 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2005/0228209), in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0222709), further in view of Sims et al. (US 2009/0108969), Saito et al. (JP 2012125546), citing to attached translation, and Tortolero et al. (US 2022/0241605).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider et al. teaches a multisite transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) system (Figs. 1-2; paras. 0010-0011, 0013, and 0022) comprising:
at least one mechanical frame (Fig. 1, mechanical portion 1; Fig. 2; paras. 0047 and 0054-0060);
three or more coil devices (Fig. 2, magnetic coils 5 and 10; Fig. 3, magnetic coils 130 and 150; Abstract; paras. 0054 and 0062, wherein one or multiple coils may be used) attached to the mechanical frame for adjustment of the coil devices in the TMS system (paras. 0013, 0054-0055, 0059, and 0062-0064).
Schneider et al. fails to specifically teach three or more AT coil devices, wherein each AT coil device comprises: a non-metal coil holder comprising a coil holder inner diameter and a coil holder outer diameter, wherein the coil holder inner diameter defines a hollow core; at least two winding layers, wherein each winding layer comprises a wire wrapped around the coil holder outer diameter, wherein a width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm-2.5 cm, respectively; and a separating layer between each winding layer, wherein the at least two winding layers are substantially parallel to one another and have a tilting angle of about 0° to about 80° relative to a longitudinal axis of the non-metal coil holder, wherein the tilting angle of at least one of the AT coil devices is about 0°, and wherein the at least one 0° AT coil device is positioned between at least two AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°, and wherein each of the at least two AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80° can generate stimulation peaks.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong et al. teaches three or more AT coil devices (Fig. 1, electromagnetic coil system 100; paras. 0040 and 0048, “multiple electromagnetic coil systems 100, e.g., three electromagnetic coil systems”), wherein each AT coil device comprises:
at least two winding layers (Fig. 1, where multiple conductive coils 110 are stacked on each other, these conductive coils are being construed as the “winding layers”; paras. 0040-0044 and 0047); and
wherein the at least two winding layers are substantially parallel to one another and have a tilting angle of about 0° to about 80° relative to a longitudinal axis of the toroid (paras. 0008-0011, 0040-0041, 0044, 0050; Fig. 9, where the conductive coil is angled relative to longitudinal axis of the magnetic core 120; Figs. 10(a)-10(c); see Annotated Figure 9(A)),
wherein the tilting angel of at least one of the AT coil devices is about 0° (paras. 0040-0041, 0045, 0047, and 0050, wherein the conductive coils may have a 0° wrapping angle, a 0° wrapping angle may create a relatively flat/nonangled electromagnetic coil system 100; Figs. 4(A) and 10(C)), and at least two AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80° (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; Fig. 10(A)), and wherein each of the at least two AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80° can generate stimulation peaks (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; see Figs. 4(C)-4(E) wherein peak electrical fields are produced when the conductive coils have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al. with the AT coil device of Hong et al. An electromagnetic coil system with angled conductive coils may induce a highly focused electrical field with increased field strength (Hong et al., paras. 0046-0048).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9(A)
While Schneider et al. in view of Hong et al. teaches three or more AT coil device, wherein each AT coil device comprises: at least two winding layers, wherein the at least two winding layers are substantially parallel to one another and have a tilting angel of about zero to eighty degrees; wherein the tilting angle of at least one of the AT coil devices is zero degrees, and wherein at least two AT coil devices have tilting angles between about ten degrees and 80 degrees, the combination of Schneider et al. and Hong et al. fails to teach a non-metal coil holder comprising a coil holder inner diameter and a coil holder outer diameter, wherein the coil holder inner diameter defines a hollow core; wherein each winding layer comprises a wire wrapped around the coil holder outer diameter, wherein a width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm-2.5 cm, respectively; and a separating layer between each winding layer, and wherein the at least one 0° AT coil device is positioned between at least two AT coil devices.
Sims et al. teaches an analogous TMS coil device further comprising:
a non-metal coil holder (Fig. 1C, frame 108; para. 0057) comprising a coil holder inner diameter and a coil holder outer diameter (paras. 0053; see Annotated Figure 1A), wherein the coil holder inner diameter defines a hollow core (paras. 0028 and 0055; Fig 1B, ferromagnetic core 152);
wherein the at least one winding layer comprises wire wrapped around the coil holder outer diameter (Fig. 1B, coil winding 140, winding layers 130, 132, 134; para. 0053); and
a separating layer between each winding layer (Fig. 1C, support wall 156; para. 0056; see Annotated Figure 1B).
PNG
media_image2.png
428
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A
PNG
media_image3.png
239
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al. in view of Hong et al. with the non-metal coil holder, winding layers, and the separating layer of Sims et al. This modification incorporates: a coil holder constructed of a dielectric material which maintains sufficient mechanical strength to support the electromagnetic coil, a highly conductive wire that reduces the power and voltages required for operations, yet accurately directs magnetic pulses for neuron stimulation, and a separating layer that structurally constrains the litz wire when energized with heavy currents (Sims et al., Abstract; paras. 0056-0057).
While Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., teaches a non-metal coil holder wherein each winding layer comprises a wire wrapped around the coil holder outer diameter, and a separating layer, the combination of Schneider et al., Hong et al., and Sims et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm-2.5 cm, and wherein the at least one 0° AT coil device is positioned between at least two AT coil devices.
Saito et al. teaches an analogous TMS coil device wherein the width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm-2.5 cm (page 6, para. 8, “the winding wire has a width of 2 mm and a height of 6 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., with the winding layer(s) width and height ranges of Saito et al. Coil parameters, such as the width and height of layer windings, impact the strength of brain eddy currents and inductances. Electrical resistance decreases as the width and height increases; therefore, a winding layer width of roughly 2 mm and a winding height of 6 mm is optimal for not only bending the conductor into a desired shape, but also manipulating the electrical resistance (Saito et al., page 17, para. 3, “As the standard dimensions of the eccentric spiral coil, the average diameter of the innermost circle is 20 mm (the inner diameter is 18 mm because the line width is 2 mm), and the average diameter of the outermost circle is 100 mm (the outer diameter is 2 mm because the line width is 2 mm”; page 20, para. 8, “From experience, bending is relatively easy if the height is up to about 6 cm”; page 20, para. 9, “With respect to the “element wire (conductor) width”, the electrical resistance decreases if the element wire (conductor) is wide”).
Further, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the device of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. would not operate differently with the winding layer width and height in the range from about 0.5 - 5 mm and about 0.5 mm - 2.5 cm, respectively as this winding layer width and height range would be suitable for a variety of coiled litz wires disposed within TMS systems for magnetic stimulation of a patient’s brain.
While Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. teaches wherein the width and height of each winding layer is in a range from about 0.5-5 mm and about 0.5 mm- 2.5 cm, the combination of Schneider et al., Hong et al., Sims et al., and Saito et al. fails to teach wherein the at least one 0° AT coil device is positioned between at least two AT coil devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Tortolero et al. teaches a solenoid positioned between at least two other solenoids (Figs. 1A-1C and 2B; Fig. 2A, solenoid 0 and solenoids 1-6; paras. 0028-0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. with the solenoid configuration of Tortolero et al. This coil/solenoid configuration may provide additional focality and tighter granularity in the placement of and in the spatial configuration of the maximum induced electrical field at the target hotspot (Tortolero et al., paras. 0024 and 0031).
Regarding claim 10, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein the hollow core further comprises a core material that is different from the material of the non-metal coil holder (Sims et al., para. 0055; Fig. 1B, ferromagnetic core 152).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 10 as stated above wherein the core material is selected from the group consisting of ferromagnetic materials, iron, cobalt, and nickel (Sims et al., para. 0055, “iron core”; Fig. 1B, ferromagnetic core 152).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches the at least two AT coil devices generating stimulation peaks (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; see Figs. 4(C)-4(E) wherein peak electrical fields are produced when the conductive coils have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system). Hong et al. fails to teach wherein the at least two AT coil devices can be operated simultaneously.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein at least two solenoids can be operated simultaneously (paras. 0023-0024, 0027, and 0051; Fig. 1A and 1B, solenoids 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the simultaneous coil operation of Tortolero et al. By adjusting the feed current of selected solenoids, the individual magnetic flux densities generated by the solenoids can be selectively controlled, modified, and/or switched. This capability allows for the creation of a dynamically moveable and configurable electrical field at the target location (Tortolero et al., paras. 0023-0034 and 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches wherein the tilting angle of at least one AT coil device is about 0° (paras. 0040-0041, 0045, 0047, and 0050, wherein the conductive coils may have a 0° wrapping angle, a 0° wrapping angle may create a relatively flat/nonangled electromagnetic coil system 100; Figs. 4(A) and 10(C)) and wherein the tilting angle of at least one AT device is between about 10° and about 80° (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; wherein the conductive coils may have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system; Fig. 10(A)).
Hong et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the TMS system comprises 8 AT coil devices, wherein the four 0° AT coil devices are positioned between four AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein the TMS system comprises 8 solenoids, wherein four solenoids are positioned between four other solenoids (see Annotated Figure 8A, wherein the internal solenoids are positioned between the peripheral solenoids).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the solenoid configuration of Tortolero et al. This coil/solenoid configuration may provide additional focality and tighter granularity in the placement of and in the spatial configuration of the maximum induced electrical field at the target hotspot (Tortolero et al., paras. 0024 and 0031).
PNG
media_image4.png
247
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8A
Regarding claim 21, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein the non-metal coil holder is monolithic (Sims et al., Fig. 1C, where the frame 108 is a solid, one-piece structure).
Regarding claim 22, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein the separating layer(s) comprise the same material as the non- metal coil holder (Sims et al., para. 0056, Fig. 1C, the frame 1009 comprises a support wall 156).
Regarding claim 23, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Sims et al. fails to teach wherein the coil holder outer diameter is in a range from 1 cm to about 40 cm.
Saito et al. further teaches wherein the coil holder outer diameter is in a range from 1 cm to about 40 cm (page 6, para. 8, “both the two coils 30 and 1000 had an outer diameter of 100 mm, an inner diameter of 20 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the specified coil inner diameter of Saito et al. The inner diameter of the coil may be wrapped around the outer diameter of the coil holder; therefore, the respective diameters of the coil holder and the coil are synonymous. The inner coil diameter is a governing measurement that influences induced currents to the brain for stimulation. As such, an inner coil diameter of roughly 18-20 mm may be capable of inducing strong eddy currents in the brain (Saito et al., page 19, para. 5, “If it is considered that a coil capable of inducing strong eddy currents in the brain is an excellent coil compared under a condition where the coil current is constant, it is desirable that the outer diameter, inner diameter, and number of turns are larger”).
Further, it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). In the instant case, the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. would not operate differently with the claimed coil holder outer diameter in a range from about 1 cm to about 40 cm as this coil holder outer diameter range would be suitable for an assortment of transcranial magnetic stimulation coil devices intended to target defined areas of a brain.
Regarding claim 24, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein the wire is litz wire (Sims et al., Fig. 1A, litz wire 114).
Regarding claim 25, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein each AT coil device (Hong et al., Fig. 1, electromagnetic coil system 100; paras. 0040-0041, 0047-0048, and 0050) is attached to a dedicated mechanical frame for adjustment (Schneider et al., Fig. 1, mechanical portion 1; paras. 0042, 0044, 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 26, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein each mechanical frame includes a 3D translation stage, a rotation stage, or both the 3D translation stage and the rotation stage (paras. 0054-0055, 0059, 0062-0066, wherein the mechanical portion comprises a linear actuator and step motor which allows the coils to be rotated, oscillated, rolled, pitched, or moved linearly, 0069, and 0077; Figs. 2-3B).
Regarding claim 27, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein each mechanical frame is attached to a holder (Fig. 2, support strut 60; para. 0061, wherein the support strut is being construed as the “holder”).
Regarding claim 28, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches at least two AT coil devices generating stimulation peaks (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; see Figs. 4(C)-4(E) wherein peak electrical fields are produced when the conductive coils have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system). Hong et al. fails to teach wherein the at least two AT coil devices can be operated sequentially.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein at least two solenoids can be operated sequentially (paras. 0023-0024, 0027, and 0051; Fig. 1A and 1B, solenoids 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the sequential coil operation of Tortolero et al. By adjusting the feed current of selected solenoids, the individual magnetic flux densities generated by the solenoids can be selectively controlled, modified, and/or switched. This capability allows for the creation of a dynamically moveable and configurable electrical field at the target location (Tortolero et al., paras. 0023-0034 and 0027).
Regarding claim 29, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches wherein the tilting angle of one of the AT coil device is about 0° (paras. 0040-0041, 0045, 0047, and 0050, wherein the conductive coils may have a 0° wrapping angle, a 0° wrapping angle may create a relatively flat/nonangled electromagnetic coil system 100; Figs. 4(A) and 10(C)) and wherein the tilting angle of at least one AT device is between about 10° and about 80° (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; wherein the conductive coils may have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system; Fig. 10(A)).
Hong et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the TMS system comprises 5 AT coil devices, wherein the one 0° AT coil devices is positioned between four AT coil devices having tilting angles between about 10° and about 80°.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein the TMS system comprises 5 solenoids, wherein 1 solenoid is positioned between four other solenoids (Figs. 9A-9B; paras. 0058-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the solenoid configuration of Tortolero et al. The peripheral solenoids can significantly repel the main charge flow in the central solenoid, which leads to an increased current density along the central axis and enhances the electrical field in the target region (Tortolero et al., para. 0056-0067).
Regarding claim 30, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 13 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches at least two AT coil devices generating stimulation peaks (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; see Figs. 4(C)-4(E) wherein peak electrical fields are produced when the conductive coils have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system). Hong et al. fails to teach wherein the at least two AT coil devices can be operated sequentially.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein at least two solenoids can be operated sequentially (paras. 0023-0024, 0027, and 0051; Fig. 1A and 1B, solenoids 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the sequential coil operation of Tortolero et al. By adjusting the feed current of selected solenoids, the individual magnetic flux densities generated by the solenoids can be selectively controlled, modified, and/or switched. This capability allows for the creation of a dynamically moveable and configurable electrical field at the target location (Tortolero et al., paras. 0023-0034 and 0027).
Regarding claim 31, Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. teaches the multisite TMS system according to claim 29 as stated above. Hong et al. further teaches at least two AT coil devices generating stimulation peaks (paras. 0040-0041 and 0047-0051; see Figs. 4(C)-4(E) wherein peak electrical fields are produced when the conductive coils have a wrapping angle between 20-40°, a 20-40° wrapping angle may create an angled electromagnetic coil system). Hong et al. fails to teach wherein the at least two AT coil devices can be operated sequentially.
Tortolero et al. further teaches wherein at least two solenoids can be operated sequentially (paras. 0023-0024, 0027, and 0051; Fig. 1A and 1B, solenoids 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the multisite TMS system of Schneider et al., in view of Hong et al., further in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Tortolero et al. with the sequential coil operation of Tortolero et al. By adjusting the feed current of selected solenoids, the individual magnetic flux densities generated by the solenoids can be selectively controlled, modified, and/or switched. This capability allows for the creation of a dynamically moveable and configurable electrical field at the target location (Tortolero et al., paras. 0023-0034 and 0027).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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
Prosecution Insights