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 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 , 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Duncan et al. (US. Pat: 6, 170 , 439 ~hereinafter “ Duncan ”) of record . Regarding claim 1, Duncan discloses (in at least fig s . 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D , 7A,7B ; col. 4, line 54-col. 5-line 30 ) a n electrical stimulus system for a wearable device configured to be worn by an animal (title ; abstract ) , the system configured to apply an electrical stimulus to an animal, the system comprising: a. an energy source ( V0; see at least fig. 3 ) ; b. an electrode pair (33, 34) ; c. an electrical stimulus circuit ( 19, 39 ) operable to generate the electrical stimulus from the energy source and provide the generated stimulus to the electrode pair (33, 34; see at least fig. 3) , and comprising one or more capacitors (40C) configured to store energy for an output transformer; and d. a controller (22) configured to operate the electrical stimulus circuit when required, wherein the electrical stimulus circuit (19) is configured to generate the electrical stimulus from operation of the output transformer (31) characterised by operational parameters representing a substantially saturated state. Regarding claim 13, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D, 7A,7B ) the energy source (i.e. the battery) supplies between 20 and 40 watts, and/or 3 and 5 volts, or about 4.2 volts. Regarding claim 14, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D, 7A,7B ) the wearable device is an animal wearable collar comprising a housing configured to support at least the output transformer and the capacitor (see at least fig. 3A) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 2-5 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US. Pat: 6,170,439~hereinafter “Duncan”) of record. Regarding claim 2, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D) the output transformer (31) operationally generates the electrical stimulus as an output pulse having an output pulse energy (abstract) , but fails to expressly disclose operation of the output transformer (31 ) is characterised by between 30% and 80% of the output pulse energy is generated by the output transformer operating in a saturated state. However, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 7A-B) the output transformer (31) operated in a saturated state (col. 9, lines 51-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to consider forming the operation of the output transformer of Duncan between 30% and 80% of the output pulse energy is generated by the output transformer operating in a saturated state through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Lastly, the above limitation does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 3, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D and 7A-B ) the output transformer (31) operationally generates the electrical stimulus as an output pulse having an output pulse energy, but fails to disclose the operation of the output transformer is characterised by the output pulse energy being between 20% and 50% of a pulse energy input into to the output transformer. However, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 7A-B) the output transformer (31) operated in a saturated state (col. 9, lines 51-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to consider forming the operation of the output transformer of Duncan between 20% and 50% of a pulse energy input into to the output transformer through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Lastly, the above limitation does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 4, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D and 7A-B ) the output transformer (31) operationally generates the electrical stimulus with an output pulse having an output pulse energy, but fails to disclose the output pulse energy is one or more of: between 0.1 and 0.15 J and a pulse energy input from the capacitors into the output transformer is about 0.5 J; and substantially 0.15 J and an input pulse energy input from the capacitors into the output transformer is at least 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 or 0.95 J. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the output pulse energy of the output transformer of Duncan between 0.1 and 0.15 J and a pulse energy input from the capacitors into the output transformer is about 0.5 J; and substantially 0.15 J and an input pulse energy input from the capacitors into the output transformer is at least 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 or 0.95 J through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Lastly, the above limitation does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 5, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D and 7A-B ) the output transformer (31) operationally generates the electrical stimulus as an output pulse having an output pulse width, but is silent about the operation of the output transformer in the substantially saturated state is characterised by one of: at least 50% of the output pulse width is generated by the output transformer operating with an efficiency of 50% or less; and at least 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 or 95% of the output pulse width is generated by the output transformer operating with an efficiency of 50% or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the operation of the output transformer of Duncan by one of: at least 50% of the output pulse width is generated by the output transformer operating with an efficiency of 50% or less; and at least 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 or 95% of the output pulse width is generated by the output transformer operating with an efficiency of 50% or less through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Lastly, the above limitation does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 15, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 3, 3A, 4, 5-5D and 7A-B ; col. 4, line 54-col. 5-line 30 ) a n electrical stimulus system for a wearable device configured to be worn by an animal (title; abstract) , the system configured to apply an electrical stimulus, having an output pulse energy, to an animal, the system comprising: a. an energy source (V0; see at least fig. 3) ; b. an electrode pair (33, 34) ; c. an electrical stimulus circuit (19, 39) operable to generate the electrical stimulus from the energy source and provide the generated stimulus to the electrode pair (33, 34; see at least fig. 3) , and comprising one or more capacitors (40C) configured to store energy for an output transformer; and d. a controller (22) configured to operate the electrical stimulus circuit when required . Duncan does not expressly disclose the output transformer is configured to output between 30% and 80% of the output pulse energy in a saturated state, and the output pulse energy is between 20% and 50% of the pulse energy input into the output transformer. However, Duncan discloses (in at least figs. 7A-B) the output transformer (31) operated in a saturated state (col. 9, lines 51-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to consider forming the operation of the output transformer of Duncan between 30% and 80% of the output pulse energy is generated by the output transformer operating in a saturated state and the output pulse energy is between 20% and 50% of the pulse energy input into the output transformer through routine experimentation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 16, the limitation “ the energy source is less than 5 volts, and the output pulse energy is greater than 0.1 joules ” does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required from an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 17, the limitation “ the output pulse voltage is greater than 1.5 kilovolts ” does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Regarding claim 18, the limitation “ the output transformer has an energy density around 13.9 mj/cm.sup.3 and/or around 7.7 mj/g ” does not structurally distinguish from the prior art as is required form an apparatus claim . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-12 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. Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the output transformer comprises a second transformer and the system further comprises a first transformer, and the controller is configured to: control the connection of the energy source to the first transformer during a first interval; control the connection of the capacitor circuit to the first transformer during the first interval to store energy from the first transformer; control the connection of the capacitor circuit to the second/output transformer during a second interval; and control the connection of the electrode pair to the second transformer during the second interval to realize operation of the substantially saturated state. Claims 7-12 are allowed due to their dependency upon claim 6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3099 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th~ 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James R. Greece can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3711 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ELMITO BREVAL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /ELMITO BREVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875