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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 25 June 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 13 and 16 and canceled claim 3. Claims 1-2 and 4-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 25 June 2026 have avoided the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 25 June 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 25 June 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (KR102311085, paragraph numbers are cited based on attached machine translated copy) in view of Sasaki (US20190154838).
As to claim 1, Ho teaches a marine vessel smart pole comprising:
a wireless transmitter configured or programmed to (Ho para 0011: a first communication unit and a second communication unit installed on the body; para 0014: a WiFi service network can be formed around a maritime buoy…; Fig. 3):
perform a communication function to communicate with a marine vessel and an object other than the marine vessel (Ho para 0011: first communication unit and a second communication unit installed on the body; wherein the first communication unit communicates with a terminal within a first distance, and the second communication unit can communicate with a structure server located at a distance greater than the first distance; para 0015: A distressed vessel… can communicate with a rescue server set up at a rescue center on land through a Wi-Fi service network formed by buoys…, also see para 0024, Fig. 3); and
perform a position information function to provide the position information to at least one of the marine vessel or the object other than the marine vessel (Ho para 0051-0052: When terminal data of a terminal is obtained through the first communication unit (110), the second communication unit (150) transmits the terminal data to the rescue server, and can additionally transmit at least one of the location information of the body and the identification information of the body to the rescue server; also see para 0043, para 0024, Fig. 3).
Ho further teaches the position information function provides the position of the marine vessel smart pole stored in the marine vessel smart pole to at least one of the marine vessel or the object other than the marine vessel (Ho para 0051-0052: …transmit at least one of the location information of the body and the identification information of the body to the rescue server; also see para 0043, para 0024, Fig. 3)… The buoy (100) can be installed to be fixed in a set position (Ho para 0055).
Ho does not explicitly teach a memory to store position information indicating a position of the marine vessel smart pole, the position information being acquired in advance.
Sasaki is directed to a navigation system comprising a buoy. Sasaki teaches a memory to store position information indicating a position of the marine vessel smart pole, the position information being acquired in advance (Sasaki para 0079: …the position of the buoy 6… are mapped to each other and may be stored in the storage device 23 of the navigation signal transmitter 9 as reference information…; para 0057: The storage device 28 of the transponder 4 stores position information of its own or information that specifies the position of the transponder 4 , such as ID information of its own… the transmitter 26 of the transponder 4 may convert the information stored in the storage device 28 into a signal such as an acoustic signal or an optical signal and transmit the signal; para 0030-0031:…transmits a navigation signal to navigate a mobile body…such as an aircraft, a rocket or a ship…an anchor buoy floating along the surface of the water and at least three or more transponders fixed at the bottom of the water…; also see para 0035, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Ho so as to include a memory to store position information indicating a position of the marine vessel smart pole, the position information being acquired in advance in view of Sasaki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Sasaki because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 2, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 1, wherein the object other than the marine vessel is at least one of an information communication network, an information processing device, or another marine vessel smart pole (Ho para 0011:…the second communication unit can communicate with a structure server located at a distance greater than the first distance; para 0015: A distressed vessel… can communicate with a rescue server set up at a rescue center on land through a Wi-Fi service network formed by buoys…, also see para 0024, Fig. 3).
As to claim 4, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 1, wherein the wireless transmitter is configured or programmed to provide a neighborhood information function to determine a neighborhood situation of the marine vessel smart pole and provide information regarding the neighborhood situation to at least one of the marine vessel or the object other than the marine vessel (Ho para 0011: first communication unit and a second communication unit installed on the body; wherein the first communication unit communicates with a terminal within a first distance, and the second communication unit can communicate with a structure server located at a distance greater than the first distance; para 0015: A distressed vessel… can communicate with a rescue server set up at a rescue center on land through a Wi-Fi service network formed by buoys…, also see para 0021-0024, Fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 4, wherein the neighborhood information function provides information regarding a marine vessel at or within a vicinity of the marine vessel smart pole (Ho para 0021-0024, Fig. 3).
As to claim 6, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 5, wherein the information regarding the marine vessel includes information regarding whether or not the marine vessel is moored on the marine vessel smart pole or information regarding whether or not the marine vessel is anchored at or within a vicinity the marine vessel smart pole (Ho para 0021-0024: a vessel…continue navigation with the assistance of the buoys or transmit a rescue signal to a rescue server.., Fig. 3).
As to claim 9, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 1, further comprising a route information function of providing information regarding a route to a navigating marine vessel (Ho para 0024: a vessel in an emergency situation can continue navigation with the assistance of the buoys or transmit a rescue signal).
As to claim 11, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 1, further comprising a power storage function of generating electricity and storing the generated electricity (Ho para 0043, a solar panel, a battery).
As to claim 12, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 1, further comprising an indicator to provide a landmark to the marine vessel (Ho para 0024: If multiple emergency AP smart buoys are provided, a vessel in an emergency situation can continue navigation with the assistance of the buoys).
As to claim 13.
Claim 13 an apparatus claim (marine vessel communication connection device) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (marine vessel smart pole). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Sasaki.
As to claim14, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel communication connection device according to claim 13, wherein the marine vessel communication connection device is provided on a pole, a light beacon, an indicator, or an artificial floating body (Ho Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and related text).
As to claim 16.
Claim 16 an apparatus claim (marine vessel communication connection system) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (marine vessel smart pole). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Sasaki.
Claims 7-8, 10, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Sasaki as applied to claims 1, 13 and 16 above, and further in view of Kamolov (“An IoT-based ship berthing method using a set of ultrasonic sensors”).
As to claim 7, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 4.
Ho in view of Sasaki does not teach wherein the neighborhood information function provides at least one of a congestion situation or a reservation situation of a service providing facility associated with the marine vessel smart pole.
Kamolov is directed to a ship berthing method. Kamolov teaches the sensor layer of the system can be viewed as common sensors that are fixed at the port. This set of sensors works to elucidate a certain place if there is a vessel at the port or not (Kamolov, section 4.1.3)… ships can be anchored at each berth in the port equipped with a particular set and number of sensors. Every space at the port has its own set of sensors and numbers. In Figure 6a, the red colored sensor means that the space is occupied and that the sensor provides "busy" information. The blue sensor indicates that the space is empty and that the sensor indicates "empty" information. The above scenario is the same as our first one and when a set of sensors are busy is means there is ships in the berth, and if not the place is empty (Kamolov, section 4.2, 4.3).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the neighborhood information function provides at least one of a congestion situation or a reservation situation of a service providing facility associated with the marine vessel smart pole in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 8, Ho in view of Sasaki and Kamolov teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 7.
Kamolov further teaches wherein the service providing facility is any one of an accommodation facility, a dining facility, a pier, or a refueling facility (Kamolov, section 2.2.2, Fig. 2, Fig. 6).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the service providing facility is any one of an accommodation facility, a dining facility, a pier, or a refueling facility in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 10, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel smart pole according to claim 9.
Kamolov further teaches wherein the information regarding the route is at least one of information regarding a route regulation or information regarding an entry prohibited area (Kamolov, section 4.2: red colored sensor means that the space is occupied, i.e., entry prohibited; Fig. 6).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the information regarding the route is at least one of information regarding a route regulation or information regarding an entry prohibited area in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 15, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel communication connection device according to claim 13.
Kamolov further teaches wherein the marine vessel communication connection device is located in a marine vessel landing device of a port facility (Kamolov Fig. 6 and related text).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the marine vessel communication connection device is located in a marine vessel landing device of a port facility in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 17, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel communication connection system according to claim 16.
Kamolov further teaches wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located along a predetermined route (Kamolov Fig. 6 and related text).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located along a predetermined route in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 19, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel communication connection system according to claim 16.
Kamolov further teaches wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located in a port (Kamolov Fig. 6 and related text).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located in a port in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Slemmer (US20040254840).
As to claim 18, Ho in view of Sasaki teaches the marine vessel communication connection system according to claim 16.
Ho in view of Sasaki does not teach wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located to surround an entry prohibited area.
Slemmer is directed to a parking reservation system. Slemmer teaches …the grid perimeter or boundaries may be physically blocked by lot attendants, cones, or other structures such as modular access gates that can be opened and/or closed or positioned as the grid indicates to provide a restricted access region that is adjustable in size (Slemmer para 0064).
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 Ho so as to include wherein the plurality of marine vessel smart poles are located to surround an entry prohibited area in view of Kamolov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Ho and Kamolov because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights