Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/187,423

ELEVATED STRUCTURE-MOUNTED LIGHTING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2023
Examiner
SONG, ZHENG B
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
C&M Oilfield Rentals LLC
OA Round
7 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
8-9
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
528 granted / 754 resolved
+2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
787
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 754 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 1/30/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/30/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner. 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) 1-4, 9, 11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurster et al. (US 2013/0223092) (hereinafter Wurster) in view of Curlett et al. (US 2021/0025580) (hereinafter Curlett). Claim 1: Wurster teaches a structure-mounted lighting system comprising: a plurality of light units (2, fig. 8), each light unit comprising a light fixture (2, 5, fig. 2) configured to emit light directed in a first direction (D1, see annotated fig. 8) at a first radial angle (90 degree angle, see annotated fig. 8) in relation to a central longitudinal axis (AX, fig. 8) of the structure (tower supporting 2 and 3, see annotated fig. 8) on which the lighting system (2) is mounted; and a lighting beacon (3, 4, fig. 8) configured to warn aircraft (warning, see abstract), coupled to one or more of the light units (2, 5), and configured to emit light directed in a second direction at a second radial angle (90 degree angle, see annotated fig. 8) in relation to the central longitudinal axis (AX1) of the structure on which the lighting system is mounted (see fig. 8). PNG media_image1.png 702 341 media_image1.png Greyscale Curlett teaches a plurality of light units (32, fig. 2) configured to emit light in a first direction (individual lamp assemblies may also be individually adjusted to provide a desired light direction, see para [0126]) (note: since the plurality of light units can be individually adjusted the first radial angle and second radial angles can be different from each other. Therefore, in view of Curlett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plurality of light of Wurster with the plurality of light units of Curlett where the plurality of light units are individually adjustable such that the first radial angle and the second radial angle are different from each other, in order to adjust the light output direction to provide desired illumination direction in a target area [Curlett, 0126]. Claim 2: Wurster teaches a power source (electrical supply… storage batteries, see para [0010] and [0011]) configured to provide power to both the light units (2) and the lighting beacon (3, 4). Claim 3: Wurster teaches a reflector (11, fig. 7) coupled to one or more of the light units (2, fig. 7). Claim 4: Wurster teaches each light unit (2) comprises an elongate member (6, fig. 7) structurally coupled to a light fixture (2). Claim 9: Wurster teaches each light unit (2) is structurally independent from the other light units (see fig. 8). Claim 11: Wurster teaches the power source is a battery (storage batteries, see para [0011]). Claim 15: Wurster teaches the lighting beacon is compliant with Federal Aviation Administration obstruction marking and lighting regulations (US regulations, see para [0028]). Claim 16: Wurster teaches the light emitted by the lighting beacon is red (4 emits red light, see para [0044]). Claim(s) 5-8, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurster et al. (US 2013/0223092) in view of Curlett et al. (US 2021/0025580) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Gowanlock (US 11,111,761). Claim 5: Wurster fails to teach each light unit comprises a bracket configured to attach the elongate member to a structure. Gowanlock teaches ach light unit (101, fig. 1B) comprises a bracket (202, fig. 2) configured to attach an elongate member (204, fig. 2) to a structure (14, fig. 1A). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bracket configured to attach the elongate member to a structure, in order to provide a light fixture which can swivel in both horizontal and vertical directions [Gowanlock, Col. 3 lines 42-45]. Claim 6: Wurster teaches the structure is a high mast structure (see fig. 8) (radio mast, see para [0042]). Claim 7: Wurster fails to teach the high mast structure is a drilling rig. Gowanlock teaches the high mast structure is a drilling rig (40, fig. 1) (see Col. 3 lines 13-14). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock'761, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the high mast structure to a drilling rig, in order to provide lighting to a drilling rig site [Gowanlock, Abstract]. Claim 8: Wurster fails to teach each bracket is configured to attach the elongate member to a crown deck of the drilling rig. Gowanlock teaches each bracket (202, fig. 2) is configured to attach the elongate member (204, fig. 2) to a crown deck of the drilling rig (attached directly to the crown, see Col. 3 lines 40-63). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock'761, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add brackets where each bracket is configured to attach the elongate member to a crown deck of the drilling rig, in order to provide a light fixture which can swivel in both horizontal and vertical directions [Gowanlock, Col. 3 lines 42-45]. Claim 10: Wurster fails to teach one or more safety nets. Gowanlock'761 teaches one or more safety nets (301, fig. 3)(safety certified nets, see Col. 3 lines 53-63). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock'761, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add safety nets connected to the lighting system of Roe, in order to prevent objects from falling. Claim 12: Wurster fails to teach the lighting beacon is mounted on the bracket of the lighting system. Gowanlock teaches a lighting beacon (one of other light sources of 203, fig. 2) is mounted on the bracket (204, fig. 2) of the lighting system (one light source of 203, fig. 2). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock'761, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the lighting system of Wurster such that the lighting beacon is mounted on the bracket of the lighting system, in order to simplify mounting of the lighting devices. Claim 13: Wurster fails to teach the lighting beacon is mounted on the light fixture. Gowanlock teaches the lighting beacon (other light source of 203, fig. 2) is mounted on the light fixture (light source of 203, fig. 2). Therefore, in view of Gowanlock, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the lighting beacon of Wurster on the light fixture, in order to simplify mounting of the lighting devices. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurster et al. (US 2013/0223092) in view of Curlett et al. (US 2021/0025580) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Gowanlock (US 11,111,761). Claim 14: Wurster teaches each light unit (2) comprises an elongate member (6, fig. 7) structurally coupled to a light fixture (2) and However, Wurster fails to teach the reflector comprises reflective tape, taped along the length of the elongate member. Thomas teaches reflective tape (86, fig. 1), taped along the length of the elongate member (22, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add reflective tape to the reflector of Roe taped along the length of the elongate member, in order to render the elongate member visible and improv visibility of the lighting system. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that “This is the specific direction in which "lamps 2" in Wurster must be oriented in order to serve their intended purpose of aviation obstruction lighting”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the cited portion states “approximately 2.5° vertical” meaning there is a range of angles where the peak intensity is desirable” i.e. the arrangement of the light source could be in such a position where the peak intensity is between 2° or 3°. Therefore, the proposed combination of Wurster in view of Curlett would be beneficial to the intended purpose of Wurster of providing a lighting system that complies with aviation standards since it would enable the adjustment of the light source to achieve a peak intensity located at 2.5° vertical. If the light were not adjustable then it would be possible that if the lights were to be shifted or moved then it would not comply with the standards. Adding the ability to adjust the light units would allow the lights to be moved back into a compliant position. Regarding applicant’s argument that “The relevant industry standard - identified within the reference itself - establishes that the three different types of lamps disclosed in Wurster should all be oriented in the same direction”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the standard allows a range of tolerance for the direction of light emission so long as it is “approximately 2.5° within vertical”. Therefore, adding the functionality of making the plurality of light units to be individually adjustable such that the first radial angle and the second radial angle are different from each other, in order to adjust the light output direction to provide desired illumination direction would be beneficial to Wurster. 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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM. 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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. /ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 18, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 14, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 18, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604772
LED ELECTRICAL CONTACT FOR 3D LEDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586947
CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583383
VEHICLE CABIN ILLUMINATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578081
LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565986
HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 754 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month