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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasirahmadi et al ("Automatic detection of mounting behaviours among pigs using image analysis." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 124 (2016): pages 295-302, retrieved from the Internet on 8/29/2025) in view of Thomsen et al ("Welfare of entire males and females in organic pig production when reared in single-sex groups." Livestock science 149.1-2 (2012): pages 118-127, retrieved from the Internet on 1/28/2026) and Yang et al ("An automatic recognition framework for sow daily behaviours based on motion and image analyses." Biosystems Engineering 192 (2020): pages 56-71. Retrieved from the Internet on 7/10/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire image data of an image captured by a camera unit installed facing a pen in which sows are raised in a group (figs. 1 and 2; section 2.2);
a detector configured to extract a contour of each sow (section 2.3, analysis of the body contour of a pig; figs. 2a-2b) and detect mounting behavior exists by determining if contours of two sows overlap each other (section 2.3); and
a count processor configured to count a number of times the mounting behavior is detected within a preset observation period (sections 2.1 and 3).
Nasirahmadi fails to teach a pen in which only sows are raised and detecting behavior of the sows without distinguishing individuals based on the image of the image data.
However Thomsen teaches monitoring a pen in which only sows are raised (section 2.1, The experimental pens housing single sex groups were located next to each other, with a section of bars on the indoor or outdoor areas giving the male and female pigs access to see, smell and touch each other, but not to interact further) and detecting behavior of the sows without distinguishing individuals in image data (section 2.2, Observation of aggressive behaviour and mounting behaviour was performed by continuous behaviour recording of all occurrences of the chosen behaviours; Table 2. It is noted that Thomsen does not mention the identification of individual pigs).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Nasirahmadi and Thomsen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Thomsen into the apparatus of Nasirahmadi. The motivation to combine Thomsen and Nasirahmadi would be to
produce entire male pigs within the organic production system without lowering the welfare of either males or females (section 6 of Thomsen).
Nasirahmadi also fails to teach at least a portion of the contour corresponding to a shape of a head of each sow. However Yang teaches determining the contour of a sow including the shape of the head (section 3.1, The AF sequences were used to analyse contours for the detection of the key body parts, such as the sow head; section 3.2.1, The head can be identified by analysing the circularity of the sow’s body contour).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Nasirahmadi and Yang as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Yang into the apparatus of modified Nasirahmadi. The motivation to combine Yang and modified Nasirahmadi would be to provide automatic recognition of sow behaviors from video sequences, which facilitates the pig farmer in improving livestock-farming management (abstract of Yang).
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi fails to teach a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the count processor outputs an excess notice when the number of times exceeds a preset threshold.
Nasirahmadi does teach automated tracking of the frequency of mounting behavior (section 3 of Nasirahmadi). Nasirahmadi also teaches that mounting behaviour amongst pigs can increase the risk of injuries (section 1 of Nasirahmadi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alert a user when a determined amount of mounting behavior is detected to reduce injuries and the general unrest in a group prevent negative economic consequences (section 1 of Nasirahmadi).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the count processor counts the number of times of the mounting behavior in each pen of a plurality of pens (abstract of Nasirahmadi; two pens were selected for the study; section 2.1 of Nasirahmadi, two of the pens; section 3 of Nasirahmadi, both pens), and when outputting the excess notice, the count processor attaches to the excess notice, pen information about a first pen of the plurality of pens that is under observation and that exceeds the threshold (section 1, inform farm managers about the number of mounting events and identify pens requiring intervention).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the detector detects the mounting behavior using a learning model (abstract of Nasirahmadi, machine vison; section 2.3 of Nasirahmadi).
Nasirahmadi fails to explicitly teaches that the learning model is learned from a teacher image containing a region in which pigs overlap each other. However learning model is used to automatically detect mounting events (abstract and section 4 of Nasirahmadi). It would be necessary to train the machine vision system with data containing pigs overlapping (section 2.3 of Nasirahmadi) to perform the automatic detection.
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the count processor excludes a fixed period from counting (section 2.1 of Nasirahmadi, Two periods were selected (2 h between 09:30 and 11:30 AM; 3 h between 14:30 and 17:30 PM) for each day and pen, during which the number of mounting events was increased compared to other periods).
Nasirahmadi fails to explicitly teach wherein the fixed period includes a period from when a breeder approaches the pen to when the breeder leaves the pen. However it would be obvious to exclude a time period in which the number of mounting events was decreased for a breeder to tend to the pen (such as between 06:00 AM and 9:30AM) to perform necessary actions such as feeding and cleaning. Doing so would make farm management easier, cheaper and more efficient in use of manpower (section 4 of Nasirahmadi).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the count processor excludes a fixed period from counting (section 2.1 of Nasirahmadi, Two periods were selected (2 h between 09:30 and 11:30 AM; 3 h between 14:30 and 17:30 PM) for each day and pen, during which the number of mounting events was increased compared to other periods).
Nasirahmadi fails to explicitly teach wherein the fixed period includes a period from when a boar is introduced into the pen to when the boar is taken out of the pen. However it would be obvious to exclude a time period in which the number of mounting events was decreased to introduce a new animal to the pen to increase animal welfare and health, and reduce injuries and economic losses, particularly as the use of entire males becomes more common (section 3 of Nasirahmadi).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, it would be necessary to have memory storing a program which performs the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the detector is configured to detect mounting behavior exists by determining if an overlap region of the contours of the two sows is 30% or above of the size of an upper sow of the two sows (page 299 of Nasirahmadi, here the length of two pigs (length of major axis in fitted ellipse) will be changed to approximately 1.3 to 2 pig lengths if the pig is mounting from behind the second one, and the length of major and minor axis will be around 1.3–1.8 pig lengths if the pig is mounting from the side of another pig).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the detector is configured to detect mounting behavior does not exist by determining if a head of a first sow and a head of a second sow overlap each other (page 299 of Nasirahmadi, As a result, in a sequence of frames, the distance from the head of one pig to the other pig (head or tail) could be obtained from its direction of movement, as well as the distances between head of one pig to both sides of other pigs. Furthermore, if two pigs were standing close to each other without any mounting event, the algorithm just fitted an ellipse to each of the pigs and no mounting behaviour was specified).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claims 1, 11, and 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasirahmadi et al ("Automatic detection of mounting behaviours among pigs using image analysis." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 124 (2016): pages 295-302, retrieved from the Internet on 8/29/2025), Thomsen et al ("Welfare of entire males and females in organic pig production when reared in single-sex groups." Livestock science 149.1-2 (2012): pages 118-127, retrieved from the Internet on 1/28/2026) and Yang et al ("An automatic recognition framework for sow daily behaviours based on motion and image analyses." Biosystems Engineering 192 (2020): pages 56-71. Retrieved from the Internet on 7/10/2026) in view of Takashima et al (JP2020156393A).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi teaches a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the count processor counts the number of times of the mounting behavior (sections 2.1 and 3 of Nasirahmadi).
Nasirahmadi fails to teach identifying each of the sows raised in a group, and when outputting the excess notice, the count processor attaches to the excess notice, identification information about a first sow that shows the mounting behavior.
However Takashima teaches identifying each of animal raised in a group and identification information about a first animal that shows the mounting behavior (page 3 paragraph thirteen – page 4 paragraph 1 in the machine translation). It would be obvious to apply the steps to pigs and attach the identification information to the notice which informs farmers about the number of mounting events (section 1 of Nasirahmadi).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Nasirahmadi with Takashima as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Takashima into the apparatus of modified Nasirahmadi. The motivation to combine Takashima and modified Nasirahmadi would be to accurately output that an animals has taken a riding action (abstract of Takashima).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasirahmadi et al ("Automatic detection of mounting behaviours among pigs using image analysis." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 124 (2016): pages 295-302, retrieved from the Internet on 8/29/2025), Thomsen et al ("Welfare of entire males and females in organic pig production when reared in single-sex groups." Livestock science 149.1-2 (2012): pages 118-127, retrieved from the Internet on 1/28/2026) and Yang et al ("An automatic recognition framework for sow daily behaviours based on motion and image analyses." Biosystems Engineering 192 (2020): pages 56-71. Retrieved from the Internet on 7/10/2026) in view of Yancey et al (US9119379).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi fails to teach a pig rearing support apparatus wherein a threshold number of times the mounting behavior is detected indicates that estrus symptoms are present in the pen.
However, Yancey teaches wherein a threshold number of times mounting behavior is detected indicates that estrus symptoms are present in the pen (col. 6 lines 10-18).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Nasirahmadi with Yancey as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Yancey into the apparatus of modified Nasirahmadi. The motivation to combine Yancey and modified Nasirahmadi would be determine optimal breeding time in a female animal (col. 1 lines 35-37 of Yancey).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Nasirahmadi fails to explicitly teach a pig rearing support apparatus wherein the threshold number is 30. However Yancey does teach a user may set their own threshold number of detected mounts (col. 16 lines 35-38 of Yancey). It would be obvious to set the threshold number to 30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights