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. Claim Objections Claim s 1 , 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 4, “comprises wire” should read “comprises a wire” In claim 19, line 1, “the two elliptical beam pairs” should read “the four elliptical beam pairs” In claim 20, line 1, “wherein angle” should read “wherein an angle” 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the width and height of each winding layer " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the width and height of each winding layer” will be read as “a width and height of each winding layer is…”. 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-8 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 FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Hong et al. (US 2020/0222709), hereinafter "Hong et al. 709", in view of Sims et al. (US 2009/0108969), further in view of Saito et al. (JP 2012/125546), citing to attached translation . Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. 709 teaches an angled-tuned (AT) transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil device (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: at least two winding layers ( Fig. 1, where multiple conductive coils 110 are stacked on each other, i.e., “winding layers” ), and wherein at least two winding layers are substantially parallel to one another and are arranged at an angle of about 0 ° to about 80 ° relative to a horizontal plane of the toroid (para. 0050; Fig. 1, where the conductive coil is angled relative to the xy plane; Figs. 10(a)-10(c) ; see Modified Figure 9(A) ) . Modified Figure 9(A) Hong et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein the angled-tuned (AT) transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) 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; wherein the at least one winding layer comprises wire wrapped around the coil holder outer diameter, 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, respectively; and a separating layer between each winding layer . 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 Modified 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 M odified Figure 1B) . Modified Figure 1A Modified 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 modified the angled-tuned TMS coil device of Hong et al. 709 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). Hong et al. 709 , in view of Sims et al. , fail s 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 . 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 modified the angled-tuned TMS coil device of Hong et al. 709, 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 in to 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 Hong et al. 709 in view of 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. Regarding claim 2, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 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 3, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 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 4, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 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 5, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 4 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 6, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the angle of the at least two winding layers is in a range from about 10 ° to about 80 ° relative to the horizontal plane of the toroid (Hong et al. 709, para. 0050; Fig. 1, where the conductive coil is angled relative to the xy plane; Figs. 10(a)-10(c) ; see Modified Figure 9(A) above ) . Regarding claim 7, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 as stated above . Hong et al. 709 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 the angled-tuned TMS coil device of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito 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. Th e 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 device of Hong et al. 709 in view of Saito 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 a n assortment of transcranial magnetic stimulation coil devices intended to target defined areas of a brain. Regarding claim 8, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the wire is litz wire (Sims et al., Fig. 1A, litz wire 114) . Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 9-15 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 FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schneider (US 2015/0099921) . Regarding claim 9, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. teaches the AT coil device according to claim 1 as stated above. Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. , further teach es a TMS system (Hong et al. 709, para. 0039, “electromagnetic coil system 100…for transcranial or transdermal magnetic stimulation”). Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. fails to teach wherein the TMS system further comprises a mechanical frame; and at least one AT coil device attached to the mechanical frame for adjustment of the at least one AT coil device in the TMS system. Schneider teaches a n analogous TMS system (Abstract) comprising: a mechanical frame (Fig. 2, frame 210); and at least one coil device attached to the mechanical frame for adjustment of the at least one coil in the TMS system (paras. 0015 and 0039). 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 simply substituted the angled-tuned coil device of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., further in view of Saito et al. with the at least one coil device attached to the mechanical frame for adjustment of the coil device in the TMS system of Schneider . Incorporating a mechanical frame attached to the AT coil device may enable rough and fine positioning of the AT coils around a patient’s skull for precise and focal treatment (Schneider, para. 0039). Regarding claim 10, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the 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, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the 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, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above wherein the angle of the at least two winding layers of the AT coil device is in a range from about 10 ° to about 80 ° relative to the horizontal plane of the toroid (Hong et al. 709, para. 0050; Fig. 1, where the conductive coil is angled relative to the xy plane; Figs. 10(a)-10(c) ; see Modified Figure 9(A) above ) . Regarding claim 13, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 9 as stated above. Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. fails to teach wherein the TMS system comprises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 AT coil devices, wherein the AT coil devices are the same as or different from one another. Schneider further teaches wherein the TMS system comprises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 coil devices, wherein the coil devices are the same as or different from one another ( Fig. 2, where the coils 205-208 are identical; paras. 0009-0010 and 0039). 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 combined the TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the plurality of coil devices attached to the mechanical frame of Schneider . Doing so would create a multisite stimulation system that is capable of stimulat ing the anterior and posterior portion of a subject’s brain ( Schneider, paras. 0046- 0047 ). Regarding claim 14, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 13 as stated above. Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. fails to teach a pair of AT coil devices arranged in a "V shape," relative to a horizontal plane. Schneider further teaches a pair of TMS coil devices arranged in a "V shape," relative to a horizontal plane (para. 0010, “V-shaped”; para. 0025). 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 combined the TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the coil devices arranged in a “ V shape ” of Schneider. Incorporating bent or V-shaped coils enables the generation of high-strength magnetic field s with small contact surfaces. Furthermore, the reduced contact area permits the placement of multiple coils over a subject’s head (Schneider, para. 0010). Regarding claim 15, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 13 as stated above. Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al. fails to teach a pair of AT coil devices arranged in a “A shape,” relative to a horizontal plane, to form an elliptical beam pair. Schneider further teaches a pair of TMS coil devices arranged in a “A shape,” relative to a horizontal plane, to form an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”). 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 combined the TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the coil devices arranged in a “A shape” of Schneider . Essentially, by inverting the V-shaped coils disclosed by Schneider, A-shaped coils (elliptical beam pairs) are produced. Similar to V-coils, coils arranged in an “A shape” may have small contact surface s ; however, the coils differ with regard to the induced fields they produce. An A shaped coil’s field may disperse across the surface of the patient’s brain because the apex of the system is oriented distal to the skull ’s surface (Schneider, paras. 0009, 0012, 0048-0049). Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 16-18 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 FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Schneider, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Hong et al. (US 2018/0193658), hereinafter "Hong et al. 658" . Regarding claim 16, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 15 as stated above. Schneider further teaches an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”) ; however, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein two elliptical beam pairs are arranged in a "V arrangement" to form a composite 4-coil structure. Hong et al. 658 teaches an analogous TMS system wherein coils are arranged in a “V arrangement” to form a composite 4-coil structure (Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of magnetic coils 130 arranged in arrays; see Modified Figure 2). 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 TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the coils arranged in a “V arrangement” to form a composite 4-coil structure of Hong et al. 658. S ubstituting the coils of H o ng et al. 658 with the AT coil devices arranged in a “A shape” of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider creates a superimposing, concentrated magnetic field with a small target s ite that can reach depths within the patient’s body without affecting surrounding tissues (Hong et al. 658, Abstract; paras. 0009, 0027 , and 0089). Modified Figure 2 Regarding claim 17, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 15 as stated above. Schneider further teaches an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”); however, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein four elliptical beam pairs are arranged in two "V arrangements" to form a composite 8-coil structure. Hong et al. 658 teaches an analogous TMS system wherein coils are arranged in a “V arrangement” to form a composite 8-coil structure (Fig. 2 depicts a plurality of magnetic coils 130 arranged in arrays; see modified Figure 2 (labeled Modified Figure 2.1) ) . 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 TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the coils arranged in a “V arrangement” to form a composite 8-coil structure of Hong et al. 658. Substituting the coils of H o ng et al. 658 with the AT coil devices arranged in a “A shape” of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider creates a superimposing, concentrated magnetic field with a small target site that can reach depths within the patient’s body without affecting surrounding tissues (Hong et al. 658, Abstract; paras. 0009, 0027 , and 0089). Modified Figure 2.1 Regarding claim 18, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 16 as stated above. Schneider further teaches an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”); however, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein the a ngle of the two elliptical beam pairs in the "V arrangement" is in a range from about 30 ° to 70 ° . Hong et al. 658 teaches an analogous TMS system wherein the angle of the coils in the “V arrangement” is in a range from about 30 ° to 70 ° (see modified Figure 2 (labeled Modified Figure 2.2)). 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 TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the angle of the coils in the “V arrangement” of Hong et al. 658. By arranging the elliptical beam pairs disclosed by Schneider (i.e.., inverting the V-shaped TMS coils) in a V configuration oriented at an angle between 30 and 70 degrees, the stimulating fields may be capable of reaching significant depths beneath the surface of the subject’s brain, as opposed to targeting more superficial regions with a broader angle range (Hong et al. 658, paras. 0004 and 0067). Modified Figure 2.2 Regarding claim 19, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 17 as stated above. Schneider further teaches an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”); however, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein the a ngle of the four elliptical beam pairs in the "V arrangement" is in a range from about 30 ° to 70 ° . Hong et al. 658 teaches an analogous TMS system wherein the angle of the coils in the “V arrangement” is in a range from about 30 ° to 70 ° (see modified Figure 2 (labeled Modified Figure 2.3)). 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 TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the angle of the coils in the “V arrangement” of Hong et al. 658. By arranging the elliptical beam pairs disclosed by Schneider (i.e.., inverting the V-shaped TMS coils) in a V configuration oriented at an angle between 30 and 70 degrees, the stimulating fields may be capable of reaching significant depths beneath the surface of the subject’s brain, as opposed to targeting more superficial regions with a broader angle range (Hong et al. 658, paras. 0004 and 0067). Modified Figure 2.3 Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 20 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 Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al., Saito et al., and Schneider, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Rastogi et al. (“ Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-coil design with improved focality ”), hereinafter “Rastogi et al.”. Regarding claim 20, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider teaches the TMS system according to claim 15 as stated above. Schneider further teaches an elliptical beam pair (para. 0052, “if a [TMS] device in the figures is inverted”); however, Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein an angle between each AT coil device in the elliptical beam pair is in a range from about 5° to 45. Rastogi et al. teaches an analogous TMS system wherein an angle between each coil device in the coil pair is in a range from about 5° to 45° (Fig. 1(b); article number 056705-2, Method , “ The QBC is designed with two sets of coils, two larger coils which are the same size as the Figure-8 coil, and two smaller coils, which are 40% of the size of the larger coils with an inclination of 45 degrees ”). 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 TMS system of Hong et al. 709, in view of Sims et al. and Saito et al., further in view of Schneider with the disclosed angle between each coil of Rastogi et al. Inverting the coil disclosed by Schneider creates an elliptical beam pair, therefore, by modifying the elliptical beam pair of S chneider and o rienting the coils with respect to each other at an angle of 45 degrees , the focality of stimulation in the brain increases (Rastogi et al., article number 056705-1, Introduction , “t he shape and size of the magnetic coils plays an important role in determining focality and depth of stimulation in the brain ”; article number 056705-2, Method , “ This in turn increases the induced electric field in the QBC to be more comparable to that of a Figure-8 Coil, while maintaining the increased focality from the angle adjustment ”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (CN 111840804) discloses a device for transcranial magnetic stimulation wherein a wire is wound around a brain hemispheric framework; and the framework is provided with winding groves to secure the wire. Xu et al. (CN 101596341) discloses a TMS helmet comprising a bracket structure, various guide rails, and a stimulation coil. The helmet structure permits the stimulation coil attached to move with three degrees of freedom . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1390 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Robertson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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