DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Note that claims 1 and 10 filed on 2/18/2026 do not appear to include claim text with required markings with respect to the text of original previously presented claims 1 and 10. More specifically, the claims include additional text which appear to be an attempt to amend, however without the indications of addition by underlining the added text and deletion by crossing out the deleted text. In the interests of efficiency, the claims have been examined below; however, please note that any future amendment included in a response to this Detailed Action must set forth the claims with correct annotations as explained in 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-11, 14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockaday (US 2006/0260183).
Regarding claim 1, Hockaday discloses a system for eliminating a pest on a host, comprising: a passive wearable device configured to be worn on a host (Figs. 1-11 include embodiments that are configured to be worn on a host) including: an eliminator configured to neutralize the pest (paragraph [0013] suggests killing of the pest electrically, i.e. an eliminator); an attachment mechanism (band (1) (106) (171) (181) (195), hook (260) and paragraphs [0140] and [0143] list other attachment mechanisms) for holding the eliminator in a position where movement of the pest will bring it to be neutralized by the eliminator (abstract, paragraphs [0013], [0019] decoy holds the electronics for the eliminator, which is stationary, i.e. the pest moves to the decoy), and shielding preventing contact of said eliminator with the host (panel (132) acts a shield blocking heat transfer, and aluminum foil sheet (13) acts as shielding by blocking direct contact to the host).
Hockaday does not explicitly state the passive wearable device is configured for a host infected with a pest. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hockaday to be worn on a host infected with a pest, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the fact that the system would be placed on the host when a pest is within the area, and possibly when the pest has already “infected”, or has already started to use the host as a food source to avoid further attempts of the pest or additional pests in the area or that are already on the host. Further, the system of Hockaday is capable of being worn on a host infected with a pest since that does not alter the structure of the Hockaday system with the system affecting pests that are within the range of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches the system further comprising a stimulator (paragraphs [0019], [0072], [0129] teach light, vibration (sound)), and citronella to attract or repel) configured to stimulate movement of the pest.
Regarding claim 7, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 6, and teaches wherein the stimulator is configured to repel the pest (paragraph [0019] teaches a light source can be used to repel).
Regarding claim 8, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 6, and teaches wherein the stimulator is configured to attract the pest (paragraph [0019] teaches a light source can be used to attract).
Regarding claim 9, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 6, and teaches the system further comprising a compartment (6) located at a focal point of the device and configured for storing the stimulator (Fig. 1, shows the pocket (6) is where the stimulator (ampules (7),(8)) is stored).
Regarding claim 10, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 9, and teaches wherein the compartment (6) comprises a plurality of members (Fig. 6, cover (125) and cloth reinforcing (129)(130) allows for the diffusion of the stimulator) extending through openings in the compartment for distributing the stimulator the members including at least one of fluid absorbent sheets, straps, strips, and wicks (paragraphs [0118]-[0119] teach a fluid absorbent sheet, and wicking that allows for the distribution of the stimulator).
Regarding claim 11, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 6, and teaches wherein the stimulator is selected from the group consisting of light, vibration, pheromones, Soursop, coconut, tea tree oil, lavender oil, eucalyptus oil, rosemary oil, lemon grass oil, vinegar, neem, garlic, masha, peppermint oil, and any combination thereof (paragraphs [0019], [0072], [0129] teach light, vibration (sound)), and citronella).
Regarding claim 14, Hockaday discloses a method for passively eliminating pests (Figs. 1-11), the method comprising: positioning a passive wearable pest eliminator (paragraph [0013] suggests killing of the pest electrically, i.e. an eliminator) on a host using an attachment mechanism (band (1) (106) (171) (181) (195), and paragraphs [0140] and [0143] list other attachment mechanisms, decoy); interacting of the pest with the eliminator resulting from movement of the pest (abstract, paragraphs [0013], [0019] decoy holds the electronics for the eliminator, which is stationary, i.e. the pest moves to the decoy); and neutralizing the pest as a result of said interacting (paragraphs [0013], [0019] discuss the killing of the pest, i.e. neutralizing, through the electrical pulse from the interacting of the pest with the eliminator through the movement of the pest towards the eliminator).
Hockaday does not explicitly state the passive wearable pest eliminator is positioned on a host infected with a pest. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hockaday to be positioned on a host infected with a pest, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the fact that the eliminator would be placed on the host when a pest is within the area and/or when the pest has already “infected”, or has already started to use the host as a food source to avoid further attempts of the pest or additional pests in the area or pests that are already on the host.
Regarding claim 16, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 14, and teaches the method further comprising stimulating said movement of the pest (paragraphs [0019], [0072], [0129] teach light, vibration (sound)), and citronella to attract or repel for example).
Regarding claim 17, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches wherein the stimulating includes supplying one item selected from the group consisting of light, vibration, pheromones, Soursop, coconut, tea tree oil, lavender oil, eucalyptus oil, rosemary oil, lemon grass oil, vinegar, neem, garlic, masha, peppermint oil, and any combination thereof (paragraphs [0019], [0072], [0129] teach light, vibration (sound)), and citronella).
Regarding claim 18, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches wherein the stimulating is by a chemical repellant (claim 35 lists chemicals that are known repellants).
Regarding claim 19, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches wherein the stimulating is by supplying a light source and vibration source configured to encourage natural locomotion of the pest towards a neutralization area of the eliminator (paragraphs [0019] and [0129] teach a light source and a vibration source (sound) to attract the pests to the eliminator).
Regarding claim 20, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 17, and teaches wherein the stimulating includes attracting the pest (paragraph [0019] teaches a light source can be used to attract).
Regarding claim 21, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 6, and teaches wherein the stimulator comprises a light source and a vibration source configured to encourage natural locomotion of the pest towards a neutralization area of the eliminator (paragraphs [0019] and [0129] teach a light source and a vibration source (sound) to attract the pests to the eliminator).
Regarding claim 22, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 14, and teaches the method further comprising: preventing contact of said eliminator with the host (panel (132) acts a shield blocking heat transfer, and aluminum foil sheet (13) acts as shielding by blocking direct contact to the host).
Claims 2-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockaday (US 2006/0260183) as applied to claim 1 and claim 14 above respectively, and further in view of Wang (CN 106259243).
Regarding claim 2, Hockaday teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches the system includes a decoy that can include an eliminator that can shock the pest (paragraph [0013]). However, Hockaday does not explicitly teach wherein the eliminator includes opposite electric poles configured to shock the pest.
Wang, like Hockaday, teaches a system for eliminating a pest (paragraph [0004] of the machine translation, mosquito, fly), and further teaches wherein the eliminator includes opposite electric poles (Fig. 2, paragraph [0042] of the machine translation teaches the alternating electric terminals, i.e. poles) configured to shock the pest (Fig. 1, paragraph [0029] of the machine translation, to shock the pest).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hockaday to include the specifics of the opposite electric poles configured to shock the pest as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, since opposite electric poles would be required for electrical current to shock the pest with a predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Hockaday as modified by Wang teaches the system of claim 2, and teaches (references to Wang) wherein the eliminator includes one or more electrifying sheets ((35) is described as a layer, which would be an equivalent of a sheet).
Regarding claim 4, Hockaday as modified by Wang teaches the system of claim 3, and teaches (references to Wang) wherein the one or more electrifying sheets connect at one or more focal points (paragraph [0015] teaches the layer (35) connects to the terminals of a battery, i.e. focal points).
Regarding claim 15, Hockaday teaches the method of claim 14, and teaches the method includes an eliminator that can shock the pest (paragraph [0013]). However, Hockaday does not explicitly teach wherein the interacting includes contact of the pest with opposite charged electrodes.
Wang, like Hockaday, teaches a method for eliminating pests (paragraph [0004] of the machine translation, mosquito, fly), and further teaches wherein the interacting includes contact of the pest with opposite changed electrodes (Fig. 2, paragraph [0042] of the machine translation teaches the alternating electric terminals, i.e. electrodes) configured to shock the pest (Fig. 1, paragraph [0029] of the machine translation, to shock the pest).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hockaday to include the specifics of the opposite charged electrodes configured to shock the pest as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success, since opposite charged electrodes would be required for electrical current to shock the pest with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Applicant argued that Hockaday does not teach a device that treats a host that is already infected. Therefore, Applicant argued that the claims are not anticipated by Hockaday.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the assessment of Hockaday. Hockaday teaches a device that provides attractants/repellants to insects that are in the vicinity and then eliminates said pests. Therefore, if the insect is already on the host, the insect would also be affected by the device as it would if the host had not been infested yet. Therefore, the device reads on the limitation added to the claims, if not explicitly, then certainly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hockaday to be placed on the host that is already infested with a pest.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 15, Applicant argued that Wang is silent as to a wearable device and preventing contact of the eliminator with the host. Therefore, applicant argued that the claims were not obvious in the face of Hockaday and Wang.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Hockaday is presented as showing a device that prevents contact of the eliminator with the host, and therefore does not need Wang to teach that limitation. Secondly, Wang is produced in the rejection to show details of how the shock as taught by Hockaday can be produced. One skilled in the art would understand that shocking the pest would require certain details, such as provided in Wang, and therefore, Hockaday modified by Wang reads on the limitations and claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bordelon (US 2019/0066475) teaches a wearable device that detects ticks. Burgeson (US 5155950) teaches a wearable device that neutralizes pests through an eliminator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643