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
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “apply a desired tilt angle between the winged-coil structures for them conform to curved surfaces of a head of a treated subject” and “to thereby maximize strength of electric field thereby induced into said head” lacks grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, “to secure said TMS coil assembly to the head and bring substantial portion of their loops into direct contact therewith” lacks grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 15, “the winged-coil structures are configured to flexibly conform and contact the head in all of the coil portion facing the head” lacks grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 33, “The method for treating a neurophysiological condition, the method comprising: placing TMS coil array of claim 19” lacks grammatical clarity.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 34 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 “substantial loop portions” in claim 1, “substantially parallel” in claim 3, “substantial portion of their loops” in claim 13, “generally rectangular” in claim 18, “substantially coincide” in claim 22, “substantial portions of their loops” in claim 29 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms noted above in the respective claims are not defined by the claim and 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.
Further regarding claim 1, line 9, “the loops portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, “ their loops” in claim 13 and “the loops of the coil” in claim 14 lack antecedent basis. Claim 1 from which claims 13( via claim 12) and 14 ultimately depend sets forth “substantial loop portions of said winged coil structures” which seems to imply multiple portions of a loop but not a coil with multiple loops.
Regarding claim 15, “the loops of the winged-coil structures” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, sets forth “substantial loop portions of said winged coil structures” which seems to imply multiple portions of a loop but not a coil with multiple loops.
Regarding claim 19, “The TMS coil array” lacks antecedent basis “its tilt axis” is unclear as to what “its” refers.
Regarding claim 22, It is unclear if claim 22 depends from claim 19 or claim 4.
Regarding claim 23, “the timing of the operation” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 24, “the brain tissue” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 25, “each or some wires of the TMS coil assemblies” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, “31. (Currently Amended) The method for treating a neurophysiological condition, the method comprising: placing the TMS coil assembly of claim 1,” is unclear if it intends to be an independent method claim or a dependent claim, but a method should not depend from an apparatus claim. It appears applicants are attempting to establish an independent method claim that incorporates or utilizes the structure of the assembly set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, similar to claims 31-32 is unclear if it intends to be an independent method claim or a dependent claim, but a method should not depend from an apparatus claim. It appears applicants are attempting to establish an independent method claim that incorporates or utilizes the structure of the assembly set forth in claim 19.
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) 1-22 , 25, 26 and 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER et al.( WO 2013166434) hereinafter SCHNEIDER et al. in view of ZANGEN et al.( US 20160206896) hereinafter ZANGEN et al.
SCHNEIDER et al. teaches Adjustable devices and methods of adjusting and customizing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) electromagnets to produce an elongated path of induced electrical current along a user-defined trajectory in patients having a variety of different head shapes and curvatures. Existing TMS electromagnets ("coils") allow only limited adjustment of the current delivery surfaces. The present invention provides means for adjusting the sub-coil loops within a double coil structure. There is a need for TMS electromagnets ("coils") that stimulate along an extended linear trajectory while conforming to the unique curvature of each patient's head. [00011] In some variations a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) electromagnet device may include: an adjustable head frame that is configured to be worn on the patient's head and holds at least one TMS electromagnet that is (or can be) oriented to stimulate a predetermined target brain region without substantially stimulating more laterally positioned regions; and a TMS electromagnet that is adjustably connected to the adjustable head frame, wherein the TMS electromagnet comprises a first TMS coil and a second TMS coil that are adjustably and electrically connected to each other so that the angle between the first and second TMS coils may be adjusted.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 2, 29 - 31, and SCHNEIDER et al. teaches one or more coil assemblies, each one of said coil assemblies comprising adjacently located, or spaced-apart, flexible winged-coil structures configured to adjustably deform along a tilt axis passing between said winged-coil structures to apply a desired tilt angle between the winged-coil structures for them conform to curved surfaces of a head of a treated subject and bring substantial loop portions of said winged-coil structures into direct contact with said curved surfaces of the head and a fastening arrangement configured to maintain the desired tilt angle between the winged- coil structures when placed on the head of the treated subject during a TMS procedure, to thereby maximize strength of electric field thereby induced into said head. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs 7 and 19 discuss the use of flexible coils, , paragraphs [00037]-[00038] and [00045] discuss the hinged adjustable structure supporting the coils in desired angles relative to the head.
SCHNEIDER et al. does in Paragraph [00011] “an adjustable head frame that is configured to be worn on the patient's head and holds at least one TMS electromagnet that is (or can be) oriented to stimulate a predetermined target brain region without substantially stimulating more laterally positioned regions”.
SCHNEIDER et al. does not specifically teach to thereby maximize the loop portions that are tangential to said curved surfaces of the head and minimize the loops portion that are non-tangential to said curved surfaces.
ZANGEN et al. teaches a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil which is location-specific for medial brain regions or lateral brain regions is designed with multiple spaced apart stimulating elements having current flow in a first direction, and multiple return elements having current flow in a second direction which is opposite the first direction. The multiple stimulating elements are distributed around the central axis of the coil. Paragraph [0012] The individual elements in the base carrying current in the main direction are all or mostly tangential to the relevant body organ (such as a portion of a human skull), at all or a substantial part of their path. In order to optimize the efficacy of activation in deeper brain regions, it is desirable to minimize the non-tangential components of the induced electric field. Since the induced electric field orientation is in general parallel to the orientation of the elements carrying alternating currents, it is desirable to minimize the portions of coil elements which are non-tangential to the body organ (such as a human skull), especially in the base and its vicinity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device of SCHNEIDER et al. specifically to thereby maximize the loop portions that are tangential to said curved surfaces of the head and minimize the loops portion that are non-tangential to said curved surfaces as taught by ZANGEN et al. to enable specifically designed coils for deep TMS which are location-specific for medial brain regions or lateral brain regions.
Regarding claim 2, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches a field application axis passing between the winged-coil structures. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 3, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the tilt axis, and the field application axis are substantially parallel or coincide. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 4, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches configured to define a central interaction zone, with respect to the field application axis, in which additive electric and magnetic fields generated by the winged-coil structures are of maximal strength. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 5, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the desired tilt angle is a flat angle. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Further, it is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for adjusting the angles for the TMS coils applied to a patient’s head and SCHNEIDER et al. teaches varying the angle as needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using a variety of angles between the coil pairs including flat angles with a reasonable expectation of successfully treating brain tissue with the TMS coils. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the fastening arrangement comprises one or more coil retaining structures attached to the winged-coil structures and configured to facilitate adjustment of the tilt angle. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 7, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the one or more coil retaining structures are hinged with one or more pivots. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claims 8-13, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches one or more levering members each coupled to a coil holder apparatus and to at least one of the coil retaining structures to facilitate setting of the desired tilt angle between the winged- coil structures. . Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044] ratcheted hinge 501, ratchet lock knob 510, first coil 502, second coil 503, ball in socket 503, extension shaft 504, second ball in socket 505, fixation knob 512, and cantilevered arm 506. Figure 1 and paragraph 37 teach headband 120 and adjustment knob 125.
Regarding claim 14, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches configured with several degrees of flexibility of the winged-coil structures for allowing the loops of the coil to conform to the head of the treated subject and bring substantial portions of the loops into direct contact therewith. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 15, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the loops of the winged-coil structures are configured to flexibly conform and contact the head. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claim 16, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the winged-coil structures have a generally circular shape. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
Regarding claims 17-18, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein the winged-coil structures have a generally circular shape and a “D” shape and in paragraph [00015] The TMS electromagnets may be held to the adjustable head frame by one or more holders that retain the TMS electromagnet(s) on the head frame, but allows it to be adjusted so that the shape of the TMS electromagnets may be conformed to the subject's head. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012].
SCHNEIDER et al. does not specifically teach wherein the winged-coil structures have a generally elliptical shape or wherein the winged-coil structures have a generally rectangular shape.
ZANGEN et al. teaches coils with triangular, circular rectangular and shows elongated circular shapes or elliptical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device of SCHNEIDER et al. various shaped coils including elliptical and rectangular as taught by ZANGEN et al. to allow the coils to conform to differently shaped heads.
Furthermore, it is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for adjusting the shape of the TMS coils applied to a patient’s head and both SCHNEIDER et al. and ZANGEN et al. teaches differently shaped coils and the desire to conform to the user’s head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using a variety of shaped coil pairs including round, elliptical, and rectangular with a reasonable expectation of successfully treating brain tissue with the TMS coils. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claims 19 and 33, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches each one of said TMS coil assemblies having a deployment axis being substantially perpendicular to its tilt axis, and wherein the deployment axis of each one of said two or more TMS coil assemblies crosses the deployment axis of at least another one of said TMS coil assemblies. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044]. The two separate coils extend in a perpendicular direction relative to the pivot/hinge axis as seen in figure 5.
Regarding claim 20, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches two of the TMS coil assemblies connected to two different sides of a single fastening arrangement. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044]. The two separate coils extend in a perpendicular direction relative to the pivot/hinge axis as seen in figure 5.
Regarding claim 21, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein an angle between the tilt axes of the TMS coil assemblies is about 90 degrees. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044]. The two separate coils extend in a perpendicular direction relative to the pivot/hinge axis as seen in figure 5.
Regarding claim 22, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein each one of the two or more TMS coil assemblies has a central interaction zone as defined in claim 4, and wherein said TMS coil array is configured such that the interaction zones of the two or more TMS coil assemblies substantially coincide. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044]. The two separate coils extend in a perpendicular direction relative to the pivot/hinge axis as seen in figure 5.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches TMS for treating brain tissue but does not specifically teach the specific brain disorders.
ZANGEN et al. teaches a number of potential treatments for the TMS coils including Autism, chronic pain, Tourette’s syndrome, and blepharospasm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the device of SCHNEIDER et al. where the TMS coils are utilized to treat a variety of neurophysiologic conditions including is at least one of the following: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, Parkinson's disease, dystonia, movement disorder, Altzheimer's Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, autism, Asperger's syndrome, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Tourette's syndrome, blepharospasm, stroke, chronic pain, eating disorder, obesity, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, any addiction including smoking addiction, drug addiction, alcoholism or gambling, ADHD, OCD, epilepsy, migraine, tinnitus as taught by ZANGEN et al. as is well known and as a promising treatment option for various neurobehavioral and neurological disorders.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, SCHNEIDER et al. teaches wherein each or some wires of the TMS coil assemblies are electrically insulated separately. Note annotated figure 5 above and figures 1-4C, paragraphs [00007] – [00012]. Also note in Figure 5 and paragraph [00044]. Paragraph [00050] Figure 10A shows a represents a "D-shaped" coil design with a curved undersurface and specified placement in which a concentrically wound single coil powered by a single TMS pulse source. Figure 6A shows the general orientation of the insulated conductive members, with exaggerated space between the coil windings for illustrative purposes: in reality these concentric conductive members are intended to be as tightly wound as possible for inductive efficiency. Curved undersurface 1005 may be made of either rigid material such as copper and potting material, or may be made of flexible material such as stranded copper or silver cable. This portion may also be constructed with Litz wire or similar flexible conductive material. (Expand detailing each item numbered in the figure).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER et al.( WO 2013166434) hereinafter SCHNEIDER et al. in view of ZANGEN et al.( US 20160206896) hereinafter ZANGEN et al. and further in view of Moses et al.( CN 102413873) hereinafter Moses et al.
Regarding claims 23 - 24, SCHNEIDER et al. as modified by ZANGEN et al. do not specifically teach where the TMS coils assemblies are configured wherein each one of the TMS coil assemblies is electrically connected to a respective independent channel of a stimulator device configured for controlling the timing of operation of said TMS coil assemblies and for operation of a phase difference between electric currents of at least two of the TMS coil assemblies, to thereby induce a rotating field in the brain tissue.
Moses et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor methods and tools for the design of efficient magnetic stimulators. Such stimulators can excite neuronal networks that were not sensitive to stimulation until now. Stimulation can be carried out both in-vitro and in-vivo. Novel systems and techniques of this invention will enable both treatment and diagnostics by stimulating regions of the brain or neuronal assemblies that were previously unaffected by TMS. [0094] the flow through the at least two loops of current comprises a first current flowing through the first coil and a second current flowing through the second coil, such that the first current has phase difference of 90 degrees relative to the second current. In one embodiment, the 90 degree phase represents a first current lags behind the second current quarter cycle. Note also paragraphs [0094] – [0099]. It is the interpretation of the examiner in order to drive the coil assemblies out of phase, they would reasonably be connected to independent channels of the controller.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device of SCHNEIDER et al. as modified by ZANGEN et al. where the TMS coils assemblies are configured for operation of a phase difference between electric currents of at least two of the TMS coil assemblies, to thereby induce a rotating field in the brain tissue as taught by Moses et al. to provide enhanced stimulators that can excite neuronal networks that were not sensitive to stimulation previously.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER et al.( WO 2013166434) hereinafter SCHNEIDER et al. in view of ZANGEN et al.( US 20160206896) hereinafter ZANGEN et al. and further in view of HARTMANN et al.( US 20080262338) hereinafter HARTMANN et al.
SCHNEIDER et al. as modified by ZANGEN et al. do not specifically teach the TMS coil assembly configured for neuronavigation of position of the coil assemblies on the head wherein the neuronavigation is based on optical and/or electromagnetic tracking.
HARTMANN et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor a system (20) that has an electromagnetic tracking system (50) with an electromagnetic localizer system. A magnetic stimulation probe (100) is operated to produce a probe electromagnetic field, where the probe electromagnetic field is operated to induce current in a conductive material. A processor system (40) is operated to determine the position of the magnetic stimulation probe relative to the patient based on a field produced by the electromagnetic localizer system. The magnetic stimulation probe is operated to stimulate a selected portion of the patient. Note Figures 1 and 8, paragraph [0011] –[0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the device of SCHNEIDER et al. as modified by ZANGEN et al. where the TMS coils assemblies are configured for neuronavigation of position of the coil assemblies on the head wherein the neuronavigation is based on optical and/or electromagnetic tracking as taught by HARTMANN et al. thus determining a position of an instrument relative to the patient for viewing on a display in an easy and efficient manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YIN et al.( CN 109200472) teaches H coil intracranial field distribution field, especially relates to a method and device for regulating and controlling H coil intracranial field distribution through conductive block magnetic block. Including: obtaining a real head model comprising an edge system; according to the outer contour of the real head model, establishing the H coil model; in the loop part of the H coil model, establishing a conductive block model with different physical parameters; the base part of the H coil model, head front side and left and right two sides, establishing a magnetic block model with different physical parameters; using the finite element method to simulate the electric field distribution of the H coil model under the combination of the conductive block model and the magnetic conductive block model in the real head model. The invention can realize the H coil fixing condition, by adjusting the physical parameter of the external conductive block magnetic block model, adjusting the intracranial induced electric field distribution condition, providing a certain reference and thought for H coil optimization.
FOX et al.( WO 02089902) teaches apparatus and methods for delivery of transcranial magnetic stimulation. The apparatus includes a TMS coil which, when energized generates an electric field substantially parallel to a long axis of the coil and substantially normal to a surface of the coil. Furthermore, disclosed an apparatus for delivery of TMS in which a coil is adapted to a robotic member for computer-aided control and delivery. Further disclosed are methods of TMS planning and delivery in which subject images are utilized to plan, position and orient the TMS coil for precise delivery. Disclosed also are TMS coils having unique designs to better focus and direct magnetic stimulation.
LU et al.( CN 106110506) teaches a depth adjustable by magnetic stimulation coil fixing device of folding structure. comprises a third folding shaft connected with the left coil fixed bracket and a right fixed bracket of a mutual inductor coil, left coil on the fixed bracket through the second folding shaft is symmetrically provided with first coil and second semi-circular coil. and coil is fixed on the bracket by first folding shaft are symmetrically provided with a third semicircular coil and a fourth semicircular loop, the two ends of the third folding shaft is correspondingly provided with a fifth folding angle fixing groove and the sixth folding angle fixed chute, the two ends of the first folding shaft is correspondingly provided with a second folding angle fixing groove and the fourth folding angle fixing chute; the two ends of the second folding shaft is correspondingly provided with a first fixed folding angle slide groove and third folding angle fixing groove. It realizes the focusing degree of the stimulation coil, stimulating the depth of selective flexibility to realize different stimulation effects of magnetic stimulation.
Rastogi et al.( US 10792508) teaches a Quadruple Butterfly Coil (QBC) configuration having enhanced focality for stimulation of specific areas of a brain for therapeutic treatment. Finite element simulations were conducted for the QBC, the QBC with a single shield, and the QBC with a double shield. The stimulation profiles for these coil configurations were assessed with 50 anatomically realistic MRI derived head models. The coils were positioned on the vertex and the scalp over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to stimulate the brain. Computer modeling of the coils was performed to determine volume of stimulation, maximum electric field, location of maximum electric field, and area of stimulation across all 50 head models for both coils.
Hartlep et al.( US 20040138550) teaches method for planning the stimulation of hyper/hypometabolic cortical areas includes determining anatomical patient data using an imaging method and detecting positions of (i) the hyper/hypometabolic cortical areas in a patient's anatomy and (ii) a position of a stimulator. The positions of the hyper/hypometabolic cortical areas are registered and/or referenced with respect to the position of the stimulation means. An optimal positioning for the stimulator is determined on the basis of the relative positional information. [0018] Once it is then known what the field distribution looks like, it can also be calculated 120 where the stimulation area proceeding from the coil will be relative to the position of the coil. In order to positionally track the coil, it is provided with navigation markings (optical, magnetic) and can, therefore, be tracked in a navigation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN L CASLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4956. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 to 4:30.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
/BRIAN L CASLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights