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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “warning aircraft” which should be changed to – warning an aircraft --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 17-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curlett et al. (US 2021/0025580) (hereinafter Curlett) in view of Wurster (US 2013/0223092). Claim 17: Curlett teaches a method of lighting a wellsite, said method comprising the following steps: mounting a plurality of light units (200, fig. 7A) on an elevated structure (structure supporting 200, fig. 7A) (30, fig. 3) of the wellsite (drilling wells, see para [0005]) comprising a central longitudinal axis (30 has a central longitudinal axis, fig. 3); illuminating an area around the elevated structure (area under 200, fig. 7A) (area under 50, see fig. 3) by emitting light from the plurality of light units (200) in a direction (individual lamp assemblies may also be individually adjusted to provide a desired lighting direction, see para [0126]); coupling a lighting beacon (another one of 200 can be considered a lighting beacon, see fig. 7A) to one or more of the plurality of light units (200).
However, Curlett fails to teach emitting light from the plurality of light units in a direction substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis, warning aircraft by emitting light from the lighting beacon in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the central longitudinal axis, warning aircraft by emitting light from the lighting beacon in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the central longitudinal axis.
Wurster teaches mounting a plurality of light units (2, fig. 1), emitting light from the plurality of light units (2) in a direction substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis (lateral 360° radiation, see para [0025]), coupling a lighting beacon (top of 3, 4, fig. 1) to one or more of the plurality of light units (2);warning aircraft (warning of the presence of the aviation obstruction to pilots, see para [0014]) by emitting light from the lighting beacon (3, 4) in a second direction substantially orthogonal (lateral 360° radiation, see para [0025]) to a central longitudinal axis (central axis of 1, fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Wurster, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the lighting direction to emit light from the plurality of light units in a direction substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis and to add a lighting beacon on top of the one or more plurality of light units to warn an aircraft by emitting light from the lighting beacon in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the central longitudinal axis, in order to serve as a warning of the presence of the aviation obstruction to pilots of approaching aircraft [Wurster, 0014].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the angle of light emitted from the plurality of light units where light is emitted from the plurality of light units in a direction substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis to adjust the lighting area, since it has been held that the configuration of the light units was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 18: Curlett teaches providing power (power driver, see para [0048]) from a power source (power supply, see para [0048]) to both the plurality of light units (200) and the lighting beacon (another one of 200).
Claim 19: Curlett teaches coupling a reflector (222, fig. 7D) to one or more of the plurality of light units (200, fig. 7A).
Claim 20: Curlett teaches each of the plurality of light units (200) comprises an elongate member (204, fig. 7) structurally coupled to a light fixture (200, fig. 2C).
Claim 21: Curlett teaches attaching each of the elongate members (204) to the elevated structure using a respective bracket (bracket of 208, fig. 7).
Claim 22: Curlett teaches the elevated structure is a high mast structure (elevated mast systems, see para [0001]).
Claim 23: Curlett teaches the high mast structure is a drilling rig (drilling, see para [0001]).
Claim 24: Curlett teaches the step of attaching each of the elongate members (204) to the elevated structure (see fig. 7A) using a respective bracket (bracket of 208, fig. 7A) comprises attaching each of the elongate members to a crown deck of the drilling rig (deck of structure in fig. 7A) (upper deck, see para [0120]).
Claim 26: Curlett fails to teach the light emitted by the lighting beacon is red.
Wurster teaches the light emitted by the lighting beacon (3, 4, fig. 1) is red (red flashing light, see para [0043]).
Therefore, in view of Wurster, 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 lighting beacon on top of the one or more plurality of light units where the light emitted by the lighting beacon is red, in order to serve as a warning of the presence of the aviation obstruction to pilots of approaching aircraft [Wurster, 0014].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curlett et al. (US 2021/0025580) in view of Wurster (US 2013/0223092) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Gowanlock (US 11,111,761).
Claim 25: Curlett in view of Wurster fails to teach attaching one or more safety nets to the elevated structure.
Gowanlock'761 teaches attaching 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 attach safety nets connected to the lighting system of Roe, in order to prevent objects from falling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of Wurster in view of Curlett, the examiner now notes that due to the newly added claims the rejection of record is now based on Curlett in view of Wurster.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights