DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed April 21, 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1 and 3-15 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below. The Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. The previously cited prior art reference of Davis is again relied upon for the same teachings as in the previous rejection. The newly cited prior art of Sasaki has been relied upon to teach that it is known to use a glycol solvent comprising a mixture of at least a first glycol solvent and a second glycol solvent wherein the first glycol solvent has a boiling point lower than the second glycol solvent in an insect repellent system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, and 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2005/0284952 A1) (hereafter “Davis”) in view of Sasaki (AU 2012200592 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Davis discloses an insect repellent system (the heated volatile dispensing device 20A of FIG. 5 may typically produce a wick surface temperature of about 100° C. when used with insecticides; Fig. 5; paragraph [0052]) comprising: a heating element (the upper wick section 70 is positioned in the opening in the ring heater 25 of the volatile dispensing device 20A; Fig. 5; paragraph [0047]); a reservoir (44; Fig. 5) containing a mixture of an active insect repellent ingredient (34; Fig. 5) and a solvent (the lower wick section 50 is immersed in the liquid 34 in the reservoir 44 and therefore upwardly transports the liquid 34 contained in the reservoir 44 by capillary action; the liquid is an insect control ingredient, the active can be selected from the group consisting of insecticides, insect repellents, and insect growth control ingredients; Isopar-V is a solvent; Fig. 5; paragraphs [0048], [0050]: Table 1); and a wick (50, 70: Fig. 5) having a proximal end (70; Fig. 5) extending into the heating element and a distal end (50; Fig. 5) extending into the mixture (Fig. 5; paragraphs [0047], [0048], [0050]). Davis further discloses the active insect repellent ingredient is a pyrethroid insecticide (examples include organic phosphorous insecticides, lipidamide insecticides, natural repellents as citronella oil, natural pyrethrins and pyrethrum extract, and synthetic pyrethroids are preferred; paragraph [0050]).
Davis fails to disclose an insect repellent system comprising: a glycol solvent comprising a mixture of at least a first glycol solvent and a second glycol solvent wherein the first glycol solvent has a boiling point lower than the second glycol solvent.
Sasaki discloses an insect repellant system (figure 1) that includes a liquid reservoir (4) and a wick (3) for dispensing a liquid insecticide. The reservoir (4) contains a liquid (1) that comprises an insecticide and a glycol solvent; wherein the glycol solvent contains a mixture of two or more glycols including dipropylene glycol and triethylene glycol (see page 17, line 8 to page 18, line 5) which have different boiling points. The mixture of glycols keeps the insecticidal solution stable and provides for more homogeneous mixing of the ingredients (see page 17, lines 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Davis to provide the glycol solvent is a mixture of at least a first glycol solvent and a second glycol solvent wherein the first glycol solvent has a boiling point lower than the second glycol solvent, as taught by Sasaki, in order to provide a solvent that keeps the insecticidal solution stable and provides for more homogeneous mixing of the ingredients.
Regarding claim 3, Davis further discloses the pyrethroid insecticide is one of a metofluthrin active ingredient, a transfluthrin active ingredient, or a prallethrin active ingredient (Suitable synthetic pyrethroids are acrinathrin, allethrin as D-allethrin, Pynamin®, benfluthrin, bifenthrin, bioallethrin as Pynamin Forte®, S-bioallethrin, esbiothrin, esbiol, bisoresmethrin, cycloprothrin, cyfluthrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, alpha-cypermethrin, beta-cypermethrin, cyphenothrin, deltamethrin, empenthrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, fenvalerate, flucythrinate, taufluvalinate. kadethrin, permethrin, phenothrin, prallethrin as Etoc®, resmethrin, tefluthrin, tetramethrin, tralomethrin, or transfluthrin; paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis further discloses the active insect repellent active ingredient is a natural insect repellent comprising at least one of Lemon eucalyptus oil, Lavender, Cinnamon oil, thyme oil, Greek catmint oil, Soybean oil, Citronella, tea tree oil, Geraniol, or Neem oil (examples include organic phosphorous insecticides, lipidamide insecticides, natural repellents as citronella oil, natural pyrethrins and pyrethrum extract, and synthetic pyrethroids are preferred; paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis fails to disclose the active insect repellent ingredient is metofluthrin and the glycol solvent is one of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, hexylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, or tetraethylene glycol solvents. Johnson discloses the glycol solvent is one of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, hexylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, or tetraethylene glycol solvents (the second organic solvent may include one or more of dipropylene glycol; propylene glycol: 1,2-hexanediol; dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate; propylene glycol monopropyl ether; diethylene glycol monobutyl ether; or ethylene glycol monohexyl ether. In other illustrative embodiments, the second solvent may be a VOC, a non-VOC, or combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples of VOCs that are moderately volatile water soluble organic compounds include dipropylene glycol methyl ether; propylene glycol methyl ether; pentylene glycol; caprylyl glycol; propylene glycol methyl ether acetate; ethylene glycol mono n-propyl ether; propylene glycol monoethyl ether; all these glycols have different bailing points; paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Davis to provide the glycol solvent is one of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, hexylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, or tetraethylene glycol solvents, as taught by Salowitz, in order to increase the volatility of the mixture (Salowitz, paragraph [0075]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the active insect repellent ingredient is metofluthrin, since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The motivation for doing so would be reducing the biting activity of the insects.
Regarding claim 10, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis further discloses a housing (21; Fig. 5) containing the heating element and reservoir; and the reservoir (44) is formed from thermoplastic materials (The reservoir 44 can be formed from a thermoplastic material such as polyethylene, polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate; Fig. 5; paragraph [0030]). Davis fails to disclose a housing formed from thermoplastic materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a housing formed from thermoplastic materials, since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The motivation for doing so would be reducing material costs and reducing the weight of the housing.
Regarding claim 11, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 10. Davis fails to disclose the housing thermoplastic material is an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic and a portion of the reservoir is formed from a polycarbonate plastic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the housing thermoplastic material is an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic and a portion of the reservoir is formed from a polycarbonate plastic, since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The motivation for doing so would be increasing the strength of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 10. Davis further discloses the reservoir includes a sealing element that engages the wick (80; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Davis in view of Sasaki discloses the insect repellent system of claim 12. Davis further discloses the sealing element is a seal or a nitrile O-ring (seal 80; Fig. 5). Davis fails to disclose the sealing element is a nitrile seal or a nitrile O-ring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the sealing element is a nitrile seal or a nitrile O-ring, since it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The motivation for doing so would be increasing the abrasion and tear resistance of the seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6-9 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 6 and 14, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein the glycol solvent is a mixture of the first glycol solvent being hexylene glycol and the second glycol solvent being dipropylene glycol. Claims 7-9 and 15 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 6 or 14.
Conclusion
7. 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 SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights