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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2009/028966 to Woodhead (hereinafter “Woodhead”).
-From Claim 1: Woodhead discloses a system for monitoring an electric fence 101, the system comprising:
an electric fence energiser 103, comprising:
a power source 105;
a power pulse generating circuit; and
a power pulse triggering circuit adapted to provide a trigger signal to the power pulse generating circuit (p.7, ll.29-34), and
a detector 109, comprising detection circuitry configured to measure at least one parameter of a power pulse,
wherein, in use the electric fence energiser is electrically connected to a first end of the electric fence, and the detector is electrically connected to a second end of the electric fence (see e.g., Fig. 1), and
wherein, the power pulse generating circuit is configured to transmit a power pulse to the electric fence upon receiving the trigger signal, and the detector is configured to measure the at least one parameter of the power pulse at a predetermined delay time after the trigger pulse is provided to the power pulse generating circuit. (p.23, ll. 1-17)
-From Claim 2: Woodhead discloses wherein the detector is configured to generate an alarm when the at least one parameter falls outside of at least one threshold (p.37, ll. 11-18).
-From Claim 3: Woodhead discloses wherein the at least one threshold is configured during installation. (p.37, ll. 11-18).
-From Claim 4: Woodhead discloses wherein the at least one threshold is adjusted over time (p.38, ll. 14-23).
-From Claim 5: Woodhead discloses wherein the at least one threshold is adjusted based at least in part on sensed environmental effects on the fence (p.37, l.29 - p.38, l.23).
-From Claim 7: Woodhead discloses wherein the electric fence energiser is configured to communicate timing information of the power pulse triggering circuit to the detector. (p.8, ll.24-26)
-From Claim 8: Woodhead discloses wherein the power pulse triggering circuit is configured to provide power pulses at a regular interval. (p.25, l.20)
-From Claim 9: Woodhead discloses wherein the power pulse triggering circuit is configured to synchronise the generation of power pulses with the generation of power pulses on neighbouring sections of fence or generated by other energiser units. (Fig. 9)
-From Claim 10: Woodhead discloses wherein the at least one parameter comprises one or more of: voltage, current or electromagnetic field (p.37, ll.11-18).
-From Claim 11: Woodhead discloses wherein the detector is configured to repeatedly or continuously measure the at least one parameter of the power pulse for a predetermined duration after the predetermined delay time (p.23, ll.5-17).
-From Claim 12: Woodhead discloses wherein the predetermined duration is based on the expected width of the power pulse (p.36, ll. 1-17).
-From Claim 14: Woodhead discloses wherein the predetermined delay time is based on the propagation time of a power pulse on the fence (p.23, ll.1-17).
-From Claim 16: Woodhead discloses wherein the predetermined delay time is calibrated during installation of the fence system.
-From Claim 17: Woodhead discloses wherein the predetermined delay time is adjusted over time (p. 23, ll.16-17).
-From Claim 20: Woodhead discloses a method of monitoring a fence system, the method comprising the steps of:
supplying at least one power impulse to the fence system (p.7, ll.29-34);
measuring at least one parameter of the power impulse on the fence system, a predetermined delay time after the impulse was supplied to the fence system (Id.);
continuing to measure the at least one parameter of the power impulse for a predetermined duration after the predetermined delay time has expired (p.8, ll.1-7); and
generating one or more alarms if the measured parameter falls outside of at least one threshold (p.37, ll. 11-18).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhead in view of GB 2427769 to Johnston et al. (hereinafter “Johnston”).
-From Claim 6: Johnston teaches (p.7, ll.10-15; p.9, ll.8-16; p.1, l.22 - p.3, l.3) an electric fence,
wherein, in use, the electric fence energiser is electrically connected to a first end of the first electric fence line and a first end of the second electric fence line; and
wherein, in use, the detector is electrically connected to a second end of the first electric fence line and a second end of the second electric fence line,
wherein in use, the electric fence energiser supplies the first electric fence line with an electric pulse beginning with a positive polarity and the second electric fence line with an electric pulse beginning with a negative polarity, and
wherein the detector is configured to monitor one or more parameters of the electric pulse on the first electric fence line and/or one or more parameter of the electric pulse on the second electric fence line, and generate an alarm when the one or more parameters fall outside of one or more thresholds, the one or more thresholds being based at least partially upon measured parameters of the other fence zones over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Woodhead by having an energiser that sends pulses of opposite polarity as taught by Johnston in order to measure threshold values of multiple different parameters/characteristics.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhead in view of WO 2014/144041 to Demao et al. (hereinafter “Demao”).
-From Claims 18 and 19: Demao teaches: (from Claim 18) wherein the electric fence energiser is configured to measure the at least one parameter of the power pulse at the time of generating the power pulse. (p.9, ll.13-18); and (from Claim 19) wherein the at least one parameter measured by the energiser is compared with the at least one parameter measured by the detector. (Id.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Woodhead by having the energize measure the parameter of the power pulse and compare it with the parameter measured by the detector as taught by Demao in order to provide additional data in the form of comparison data, thereby allowing for additional monitoring of the state of the system in real-time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 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:
The prior art is lacking a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Woodhead such that: (from Claim 13) the predetermined duration is determined by comparing the shape of the generated pulse to the shape of the returning pulse at the detector; or (from Claim 15): the predetermined delay time is based on both the propagation time, and the expected rise time of the power pulse waveform.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues Woodhead fails to anticipate claim 1 because:
Claim 1 recites that "in use the electric fence energiser is electrically connected to a first
end of the electric fence, and the detector is electrically connected to a second end of the electric
fence " [but] Woodhead does not disclose that the alleged detector (monitoring unit 109) is connected to an end of the electric fence 101. Rather, Woodhead discloses connecting the monitoring unit 109 at intermediary positions along electric fence 101.”
Examiner disagrees. As Applicant points out, claim 1 requires that the electric fence organizer be “electrically connected” to a first end of the electric fence, and that the detector be “electrically connected” to a second end of the fence. In contrast, Applicant’s argument is that Woodhead is deficient because the energiser and detector are not physically, or perhaps, mechanically or positionally connected to opposing ends of the electric fence. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim only requires that there be an electrical connection between the energizer and the detector and the two ends of the fence, respectively, which, in this case is present in Woodhead. Given that all of the elements 105, 103, 101, 109, etc. are part of an overall circuit, they are connected to the fence at all points thereon, including the ends. Again, the keyword in the claim here is “electrically connected.”
Second, Applicant argues Woodhead fails to anticipate claim 20 because:
Claim 20 recites "continuing to measure the at least one parameter of the power impulse for
a predetermined duration after the predetermined delay time has expired [but] Woodhead discloses the transmission of signals to or from the monitoring module but fails to disclose that the monitoring module "[continues to] measure the at least one parameter of the power impulse for a predetermined duration after the predetermined delay time has expired" as recited in Claim 20.
Examiner disagrees. The Woodhead device includes both the delay predetermined delay period before the measurement is taken, and the predetermined measurement period, as a result of the device’s structure and programming. Anything that is programmed to turn on and take a measurement of something will inherently incur a delay between the instruction to turn on and the actual measurement-taking process. At the same time, anything that is programmed to measure something electronically is also inherently programmed to take that measurement for some predetermined period of time before ceasing the measurement-taking process. The processing speed/capability of the device itself “predetermines” a period of delay (i.e., the amount of time before the measurement starts) and the programming of the measuring device predetermines the period of time during which a measurement is taken (i.e., the amount of time of observation).
Conclusion
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 DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 5712705281. 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.
/DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 1/7/2026