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 .
Specification
The following objection went unanswered from the Non-Final Rejection, and is therefore restated: The use of the term Vaseline in ¶0037, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. A thorough review should be conducted of the rest of the specification for trademarked terms.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75(i). In U.S. practice, the preamble is typically followed by the transitional phrase (in this case, “comprising:”) to make the claim body clearer. Additionally, the use of the term “wherein” as a kind of stand in for the transitional phrase in claim 1 causes the reader to question what the limitations the claim body provides, since “wherein” signifies a functional phrasing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Following are examples of such errors, but the entire claim set should be reviewed for clarity and consistency.
RE Claim 1, line 5, the recitation of “the drug” is unclear. Only a “drug combination” has been functionally provided in the claim so far, and does not provide antecedent basis for a singular drug. Additionally, it appears that one drug composition is assigned to each heating zone, and that the two compositions cannot be the same, in order to function as intended. Thus, it is recommended to assign each composition a modifier (e.g. “first” or “second”) to align it with its appropriate heating zone (or “each” heating zone).
Claims 2-7, 9, & 10 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20230011402 A1), in view of Porchia et al. (US 20090162253 A1), Jin et al. (US 20070257016 A1, “Jin”), Nakatsu et al. (US 20070166341 A1, “Nakatsu”), and Zobele (EP 0241929 A2).
For Claim 1, Li discloses a composite multi-effect1 mosquito prevention and control apparatus (the device of Li issues heat out of both sides 6, 7), with a drug combination for mosquito prevention and control, comprising an apparatus housing (main shell 1), wherein the apparatus housing is provided with a first heating zone (one of 6, 7 of heating unit 5) and a second heating zone for heating the drug (the other of 6, 7 of heating unit 5), and the drug is detachably installed in the first heating zone and the second heating zone (via bins 2, 3 respectively); the first drug is installed in the first heating zone (via one of 2, 3), and the second drug is installed in the second heating zone (via the other of 2, 3), the second drug contains a repellent agent (“repellent pad,” ¶0037).
Li is silent to the drug comprises a first drug and a second drug, and the first drug contains pyrethroid; and
the repellent agent contains one or more of picaridin, ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate, diethyltoluamide (DEET), and methyl nonylketone; and
the second drug installed in the second heating zone is tablet, which is formed by mixing the repellent agent and a coating agent, and pressing after drying.
Porchia, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising two different drugs: a first and a second drug ¶0041.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the placement bins of Li with differing compositions as taught by Porchia, in order to provide multiple expected benefits achieving a desired, known effect, yielding predictable results.
Jin, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising first drug contains pyrethroid ¶0041.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the insecticide (Porchia) of the above-modified reference with pyrethroid as taught by Jin, in order to provide a well-known composition for insecticides, advantageous as being available and/or cost effective and/or effective against the targeted population of insects, yielding predictable results.
Nakatsu, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising repellent agent contains one or more of picaridin ¶0082, wherein the second drug installed in the second heating zone is tablet-like (solid volatile composition, ¶0079-85), which is formed by mixing the repellent agent and a coating agent (picaridin with the solid volatile composition, ¶0079-85), and pressing after drying (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the repellant composition of the above-modified reference with picaridin provided in an SVC powder as taught by Nakatsu, in order to provide a well-known composition for insect repellants, advantageous as being available and/or cost effective and/or effective against the targeted population of insects, yielding predictable results.
The preparation of the second drug in tablet form is considered one of (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, as outlined in MPEP § 2143(I), reference to Zobele is illustrative of such a process (title, abstract). Notably, providing a powdered substance (discussed in Nakatsu) within the device of Li may not stay together, and would benefit from the structure of the second repellant composition being easily transportable in the same manner as the device of Li, leading someone having ordinary skill in the art to press the powder into a tablet form (tablet P, Zobele), yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 1.
The above-modified reference is silent to wherein a first information display area and a second information display area are respectively arranged below the first heating zone and the second heating zone on the apparatus housing; and
the first information display area is capable of displaying a temperature and a present time of the first heating zone, and the second information display area is capable of displaying a temperature and a current time of the second heating zone.
Porchia, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising a first information display area (189a, 200a) and a second information display area (189b, 200b) are respectively arranged below2 the first heating zone and the second heating zone on the apparatus housing (Fig. 27); and
the first information display area is capable of displaying a temperature and a present time of the first heating zone (¶0067-68 discuss the ability of the lights to display information, such as on/off, which is associated with the heat/time of the zone), and the second information display area is capable of displaying a temperature and a current time of the second heating zone (¶0067-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each of the heating zones of the above-modified reference with an associated informational display as further taught by Porchia, in order to give the user data as to whether the device is working, or is working as intended, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 3, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 2, and Porchia further teaches wherein the first information display area and the second information display area are each provided with a display screen or3 a plurality of indicator lights (189a/200a and 189b/200b).
For Claim 4, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 1, and Porchia further teaches wherein a working temperature of the second heating zone is greater than 40°C and less than 120°C (57/58 degrees Celsius, ¶0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the working temperature of Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, in further light of the working temperatures of 57 or 58 degrees Celsius, in order to gain the advantages of efficiently heating the drug compositions to sufficient temperature for them to work, while also conserving electricity, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 5, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 4, and Porchia further wherein the apparatus housing is further provided with a human-machine interaction area, and the human-machine interaction area is used to control a switch of the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus and adjust temperatures of the first heating zone and the second heating zone (188, ¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each of the heating zones of Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, with the switch further taught by Porchia, in order to turn the device on/off and adjust each heating zone individually, in order for the user to have more control over each element, increasing the versatility of the device, and yielding predictable results. Such a modification would have been further obvious since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
For Claim 6, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 5, and the resulting device teaches adjusting the temperatures of the first and the second heating zones (as discussed above).
Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, is silent to wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone are both provided with a multi-level temperature gear, the human-machine interaction area is provided with a plurality of adjustment buttons, and the human-machine interaction area is capable of adjusting the temperature gears of the first heating zone and the second heating zone.
It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to substitute the temperature adjustment devices of Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, with adjustable temperature gears and controlling buttons, in order to utilize a known technique for graining the adjustable results, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For Claim 7, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein the second drug installed in the second heating zone is gel ¶0006 or4 paste, which is formed by mixing the repellent agent and a carrier (implied by the gel teaching. Further, this is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the composition of the insecticide of Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, by mixing the repellent agent thereof with a carrier to produce a gel, as further taught by Jin, in order to avoid the insecticide drying out and the insecticide lasting longer, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 9, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 1, and Li discloses wherein the second heating zone is provided with an installation groove for installing the second drug (as seen in Figs. 2-3, for example).
For Claim 10, Li in view of Porchia, Jin, Nakatsu, and Zobele, teaches the composite multi-effect mosquito prevention and control apparatus according to claim 1, and Li discloses wherein the second drug installed in the second heating zone is prepared by an adsorbent material carrying the repellent agent (the second, repellent agent, is found in a mosquito-repellent pad, ¶0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant repeatedly mentions that “no reference document discloses the coating agent, nor does mention mixing the repellent agent and the coating agent.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the disclosure to Nakatsu teaches: “wherein the second drug installed in the second heating zone is tablet-like (solid volatile composition, ¶0079-85), which is formed by mixing the repellent agent and a coating agent (picaridin with the solid volatile composition, ¶0079-85).” Specifically, ¶0082 discloses “The use of the SVC in combination (in powder form) with an insecticide such as DEET or Picaridin, wherein the presently formed structure will retain the oily material (DEED or Picardin) for a lasting period without dispersion in rain or water, thereby increasing insect prohibition.” And because the SVC (solid volatile compound) has been noted as combined with the insecticide, and causes the insecticide to last longer, the SVC is considered the coating agent. Nothing within the claim requires that the coating agent have a particular structure or configuration within the device.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 2611068 A, US 4163038 A, US 4467177 A, US 5644866 A, CN 1192699 A, US 6478440 B1, US 8891947 B2, CN 215684440 U, and especially US 20190008137 A1, as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention.
Additionally, IT 1133417 B shows an insect repellent in tablet form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: the terms “composite” and “multi-effect” are very broad, and are being interpreted in light of the claim body to read on the two heating areas and their respective compounds.
2 Interpretation note: “below” without another reference point reads on the information display. Additionally, at least elements 200 of Porchia are below the heating zones, Fig. 27.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
4 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.