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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2. 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. 3. Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim s 1-8 and 10-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2005/0284952 A1) (hereafter “Davis”) in view of Salowitz et al. (US 2018/0207309 A1) (hereafter “ Salowitz ”). Regarding claim 1, 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 fails to disclose an insect repellent system comprising: a glycol solvent. Salowitz discloses an insect repellent system (water-based fragrance composition; Abstract) comprising: a glycol solvent (the second organic solvent may be one or more moderately volatile water soluble organic compounds selected from polyhydric alcohols (including glycols), glycol ethers, glycol ether esters; paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davis to provide an insect repellent system comprising: a glycol solvent, as taught by Johnson, in order to increase the volatility of the mixture ( Salowitz , paragraph [0075]). Regarding claim 2 , Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. 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 the glycol solvent is a mixture of at least a first glycol solvent and a second glycol solvent wherein the first giycol solvent has a boiling point lower than the second glycol solvent. Johnson discloses 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 (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; caprylył glycol; propylene glycol methyl ether acetate; ethylene glycol mono n-propyl ether; propylene glycol monoethyl ether; all these glycols have different boiling points: paragraph [0075]). Therefore, i t 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 Salowitz , in order to allow for dispersion of vapors at different temperatures which would allow the system to work in different environments. Regarding claim 3, Davis in view of Johnson discloses the insect repellent system of claim 2. 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 Salowitz 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 o il, 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 Salowitz 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 glyco l s have different bailing points; paragraph [0075]). Therefore, i t 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, i t 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 6, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis further discloses the active insect repellent ingredient one of metofluthrin or transfluthrin (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]). Davis fails to disclose the glycol solvent is a mixture of hexylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. Johnson discloses the glycol solvent is a mixture of [diethylene] glycol and dipropylene glycol (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 giycol monoethyl ether; all these glycols have different boiling points; paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time was filed to modify Davis to provide the glycol solvent is a mixture of [diethylene] glycol and dipropylene glycol, as taught by Salowitz , in order to allow for dispersion of vapors at different temperatures which would allow the system to work in different environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the glycol solvent is a mixture of hexylene glycol, 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 absorption of the insect repellant in the glycol solvent allowing for a more uniform dispersion of the insect repellant. Regarding claim 7, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 6. Davis fails to disclose the ratio of hexylene glycol to dipropylene glycol is in a range of 65-70 percent hexylene glycol to 35-30 percent dipropylene glycol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the ratio of hexylene glycol to dipropylene glycol is in a range of 65-70 percent hexylene glycol to 35-30 percent dipropylene glycol, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing the volatility of the glycol and resulting insect repelling coverage for a particular area. Regarding claim 8, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 6. Davis fails to disclose the ratio of hexylene glycol to dipropylene glycol is in a range of 60-70 percent hexylene glycol to 40-30 percent dipropylene glycol, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the ratio of hexylene glycol to dipropylene glycol is in a range of 60-70 percent hexylene glycol to 40-30 percent dipropylene glycol, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. art. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing the volatility of the glycol and resulting insect repelling coverage for a particular area. Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis further discloses a housing (21; Fig. 5); and the reservoir 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 Salowitz 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 acrylonitri l e 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 Salowitz 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 Salowitz 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. Regarding claim 14, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 1. Davis further discloses a housing supports the heating element (21; Fig. 5), a portion of the reservoir is formed from a plastic (The reservoir 44 can be formed from a thermoplastic material such as polyethylene, polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate; Fig. 5; paragraph [0030]), the active insect repellent ingredient is one of metofluthrin or transfluthrin (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]). Davis fails to disclose a housing is formed from an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, a portion of the reservoir is formed from a polycarbonate plastic, and the glycol solvent is a mixture of hexylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. Salowitz discloses the glycol solvent is a mixture of [diethylene] glycol and dipropylene glycol (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 boiling points; paragraph [0075]). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Davis to provide the glycol solvent is a mixture of [diethylene) glycol and dipropylene glycol, as taught by Salowitz , in order to allow for dispersion of vapors at different temperatures which would allow the system to work in different environments. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a housing is formed from an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, 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 reducing the material costs of the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the glycol solvent is a mixture of hexylene glycol, 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 absorption of the insect repellant in the glycol solvent allowing for a more uniform dispersion of the insect repellant. 6. Claim s 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Salowitz as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of Schiavo et al. ( USPN 7,201,916 B2 ) (hereafter “Schiavo”). Regarding claim 9, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 6. Davis further discloses the insect repellent system is configured as a portable insect repellent system (Figs. 3-5) and wherein the heating element has a power output (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]). Davis fails to disclose the insect repellent system is configured as a portable insect repellent system powered by a battery and wherein the heating element has a power output in a range of about 3 Watts to about 4 Watts and the battery has a charge capacity of about 2900 mAh to about 3200 mAh . Schiavo discloses a n insect repellent system (a method and device for metered delivery of an insecticidal liquid into a room for the purpose of repelling or killing flying insects; Abstract) is configured as a portable insect repellent system powered by a battery (electrical energy from battery pack 316 to the individual resistive heating elements; Fig. 3A; col. 13, lines 54-58). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis to provide the insect repellent system is configured as a portable insect repellent system powered by a battery, as taught by Schiavo, in order to allow for the use or the system in areas, like the outdoors, with no electricity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the heating element has a power output in a range of about 3 Watts to about 4 Watts and the battery has a charge capacity of about 2900 mAh to about 3200 mAh , since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be increasing the insect repellant coverage of the system while optimizing the battery life. Regarding claim 15, Davis in view of Salowitz discloses the insect repellent system of claim 14. Davis further discloses the insect repellent system wherein the heating element produces a temperature output in a range, which may range from about 60 degrees Celsius to about 140 degrees Celsius (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]). Davis fails to disclose the insect repellent system comprising a battery operation. Schiavo discloses an insect repellent system (a method and device for metered delivery of an insecticidal liquid into a room for the purpose of repelling or killing flying insects; Abstract) comprising a battery operation (electrical energy from battery pack 316 to the individual resistive heating elements; Fig. 3A; col. 13, lines 54-58). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davis to provide the insect repellent system comprising a battery operation, as taught by Schiavo, in order to allow for the use or the system in areas, like the outdoors, with no electricity. Conclusion 7. 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 FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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