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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 20, 2026 are hereby acknowledged. The arguments directed to claims 1-14 are not persuasive for the reasons set below; the arguments to claims 15-19 are moot as they have been indicated as allowable.
Re claim 1’s “Below the water table” limitation: These arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Howard’s water table is not part of a lighting system and that Curlett does not expressly disclose a water table. This mischaracterizes the rejection. The rejection does not rely on Howard for lighting and does not rely on Curlett for the water table.
Curlett teaches rig-mounted lighting assemblies on drilling/service rig mast structures, including lamp assemblies attached to support/extension structures. Howard is relied upon to show that drilling rigs conventionally include a water table in the crown/upper rig region.
Further, claim 1 does not require the water table to support the extension, serve as a mounting datum, or perform a lighting-related function. It only requires that the extension is attached to the rig below the water table. Applicant’s arguments about avoiding hoisting equipment, reducing glare near the traveling block, and maintain lighting during crown-frame maintenance import unclaimed features from the specification.
Re applicant’s argument re claim 2 preventing illumination outside the wellsite area: Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Curlett does not prevent all light from leaving the wellsite area. The claim does not recite a specific cutoff, zero light leakage, a spill-light threshold, or a shroud. Under BRI, “prevented from illuminating an area outside of a wellsite area” reads on a light assembly configured to direct the beam to the desired worksite area. This is expressly taught by Curlett as it teaches that each LED is positioned in a reflector so light diverges within a beam path; thus, it teaches preventing from illuminating an area outside of a wellsite area.
Applicant’s arguments re claim 3: Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant concedes LEDs are taught, but simply reiterates it is defective for the same reasons as claim 1; thus, Examiner responds with the same argument as above which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Applicant’s arguments re claim 4: Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Curlett plainly teaches that incandescent lamps may be used. The claim does not require LED-specific cooling, LED-specific optics, or maintain Curlett’s exact thermal design after substitution. Curlett expressly teaches an incandescent lamp bulb, and substitution for a different light source (motivated by costs, availability, or the like) is routinely done in the art.
Re applicant’s arguments to claim 5-6 regarding color temperature: Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. These claims simply recite color temperature values. They do not recite glare reduction, contrasts metrics, worker performance thresholds, or any special optical configuration tie to those color temperatures. Applicant’s asserted benefits are not commensurate with the claim scope.
At 4500 Kelvin, a cool white, it is close to natural daylight which can enhance visibility; whereas at 5200 Kelvin, closer to bright daylight, it approximates midday light and can be more beneficial during night. Moreover, applicant has not shown criticality or unexpected results for color temperatures that are found throughout the prior art.
Re applicant’s arguments for claims 7-11: Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. These claims only recite lens types, not a particular light-spill limit, cut off angle, or beam pattern. Wang teaches Fresnel portions facing LEDs and controlling light distribution, including asymmetric distribution and reduced lens volume/weight.
Re applicant’s arguments for claims 12-14 about the specific distances below the water table: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. These claims only recite distances below the water table. They do not recite clearance from traveling blocks, maintain lighting during crown removal, glare measurements, shadow control, or optical cutoff. Once again, applicant imports limitations into the claims from the specification.
As it has been demonstrated that it is obvious to mount the extension below the water table, selecting specific distances below the water table is a routine design choice based on rig geometry, desired illumination zone, worker access, and clearance. Applicant simply submits attorney arguments absent any evidence that the claimed distances produce an unexpected result or are critical.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curlett et al. US 2021/0025580 (“Curlett”) in view of Howard et al. US 3929235 (“Howard).
Re 1: Curlett teaches:
a drilling/servicing rig 30 (Figs. 2, 2B, 2E),
a light assembly 40a having a light source, a reflector, and a lens (¶106: teaching there are LEDs, reflectors, and a lens cover),
an extension (Figs. 2, 2B, 2E: light assemblies 40a are attached to an extension; ¶40, 109: discussing railing system to which lamp assemblies are attached),
wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing rig (Figs. 2, 2B, 2E),
further wherein the light assembly is attached to the extension (Figs. 2, 2B, 2E; ¶109).
Curlett does not explicitly teach a drilling/servicing rig having a water table, wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing rig below the water table (emphasis added to highlight portion not taught by Curlett).
Howard discloses (Figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll 35-57) a drilling/servicing rig having a water table 14, wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing rig below the water table (emphasis added to highlight portion disclosed by Howard).
Howard teaches a “swivel and Kelley K by which drilling operations are performed when the Kelley is supported by the swivel on a drilling hook 10, which is suspended by a cable 11 which is reaved about a hook supporting traveling block 12 and an upper crown block 13 atop the water table 14.”
Moreover, Curlett shows the lamp assemblies extending far below the top of the oil rig, below where the crown and water table are.
Integrating a well rig cover having a water table at the top into a primary rig lighting system enhances the environmental protection and operational safety by effectively managing and containing drilling fluids. The combination improves the operational efficiency by streamlining fluid handling; while the enhanced lighting offered by Curlett, when combined below the water table, improves visibility thereby increasing workplace safety and efficient monitoring and management of operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Curlett with the teachings of Howard to enhance operational safety, by ensuring the worksite is well-lit while avoiding the crowded upper crown/hoisting region.
Re 2: wherein the light source emits light, and further wherein the light is prevented from illuminating an area outside of a wellsite area (¶129; Fig. 7D: the reflector directs light onto the wellsite area only).
Re 3: wherein the light source is a light emitting diode (¶127).
Re 4: Curlett does not teach in the same embodiment wherein the light source is an incandescent filament.
Curlett does teach that incandescent bulbs can be used as light sources where LEDs are (¶2).
Using incandescent bulbs instead of LEDs may be done in order to use a cheaper light source that can be easily replaced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Curlett and Howard’s disclosure with Curlett’s further teachings in order to provide a cheap light source that can be easily replaced.
Re 8: wherein the lens is a convex lens (Fig. 7D).
Re 10: wherein the lens is a flat lens 202c (Fig. 7D).
Re 11: wherein the lens is two or more of a Fresnel lens, a convex lens, or a concave lens (Fig. 7D).
Re 12-14: Curlett and Howard do not explicitly disclose:
Claim 12: wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing at least 1 foot below the water table.
Claim 13: wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing at least 6 feet below the water table.
Claim 14: wherein the extension is attached to the drilling/servicing at about 10 feet below the water table.
Changing the distance of where the extension is attached below the water table can serve many purposes. As a general matter, rigs vary significantly in their design; adjusting the lighting levels, by moving the extension, allows for the system to be customized for specific distances to ensure that operational areas are well-lit.
Attaching the extension at least 1 foot below can be beneficial to illuminate operations that are closely associated with the fluid handling activities. At 6 feet below the table, the lights can cover a broader area which might include not only the water table itself but also additional operational components or work areas. Positioning the extension at 10 feet below would permit lighting of the lower sections of the rig, which could be beneficial in multi-level rig structures or for operations closer to the ground.
And, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device is an obvious variation of the prior art, provided there is reason to so modify it. In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Here, the rig lighting system would still illuminate the rig and surrounding areas when placed at various levels below the water table, thereby not affecting its primary operational function of lighting. Thus, it is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Curlett and Howard’s disclosure and place the extension at various levels below the water table based on what is intended to be primarily illuminated.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curlett and Howard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wind et al. US 20230272886 (“Wind”).
Re 5-6: Curlett and Howard do not explicitly disclose:
Claim 5: wherein the light source emits light of at least 4500° Kelvin.
Claim 6: wherein the light source emits light of at least 5200° Kelvin.
Wind teaches/discloses (¶113):
Claim 5: wherein the light source emits light of at least 4500° Kelvin.
Claim 6: wherein the light source emits light of at least 5200° Kelvin.
Changing the color temperature of the light is an obvious way of providing light that not only effectively illuminates the area but ensure light is not too harsh. At 4500 Kelvin, a cool white, it is close to natural daylight which can enhance visibility; whereas at 5200 Kelvin, closer to bright daylight, it approximates midday light and can be more beneficial during night.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify the disclosure of Curlett and Howard with Wind’s teachings in order to effectively illuminate the worksite area as a function of worker preference, visibility, color perception, or the like.
S
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curlett and Howard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang US 20110007505 (“Wang).
Re 7 and 9: Curlett and Howard do not explicitly disclose:
Claim 7: wherein the lens is a Fresnel lens.
Claim 9: wherein the lens is a concave lens.
Ono teaches/discloses (¶41):
Claim 7: wherein the lens is a Fresnel lens.
Claim 9: wherein the lens is a concave lens.
Using a concave or Fresnel lens allows for diffuse lighting thereby illuminating a wider area to ensure proper visibility over the area. A Fresnel lens has the added benefit of being lightweight and of a reduced volume compared to a traditional convex lens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify the disclosure of Curlett and Howard with Wang’s teachings in order to enjoy the benefits of a more lightweight lens and of a reduced volume compared to a traditional convex lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 have been 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. In combination with the other limitations nothing in the prior art of record teaches, suggests, or discloses:
Re 15-18: in claim 15, “further comprising a shroud, wherein the shroud is attached to the light assembly below the reflector.”
Re 19: “The drilling/servicing rig lighting system of claim 1, wherein a crown is removable from the drilling/service rig.”
Conclusion
Relevant prior art considered: US 10125935 teaching a lighting system for a drilling rig including a lighting frame attached to a crown of the drilling rig, wherein the lighting frame includes an adjustable frame portion attached to the crown of the drilling rig and a light bearing frame portion supported by the adjustable frame portion. Also provided is at least one light support post attached to the light bearing frame portion for holding a lighting fixture and at least one lighting fixture attached to each light support post.
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 GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/EST.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights