The text of the abstract and claim shows up the apparent inability of patent attorneys to construct a coherent sentence in English. They gain little respect among engineers whose job generally includes writing technicial specifications which are used to actually construct the invention.
But why submit the application? How would you enforce it? I don't believe there is a market for these devices, and I would hesitate to take up a legal battle with someone whose hobbies include taking pet snakes for walks. (or slithers)
The USPTO pays for its operation with its fees.
I suspect the examiner found no prior art. It serves a useful(?) purpose, and therefore has utility. Cha-ching goes the cash register -- thank you Mr. Inventor for playing today. Please play again. Bring money. ;-).
I'd like to see the inventor put one of those on a reticulated python, or a black racer. "Slither", indeed.
I really wonder how some of these patents can be issued with a straight face. Nonsensical technical patents are one thing. It's not good, but I can understand how something gets through that sounds viable to a laymen but is nonsense to a highly skilled engineer.
But a snake collar? From my perspective, it's either an intentional joke from the patent office, involved judicious amounts of alcohol or shoes that someone just plain doesn't care.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.