DETAILED ACTION
This Office action response to a Request for Continued Examination filed on 04/06/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10-13, and 21-22 are presented for examination consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims
The following Applicant’s Claim Amendments (filed on 03/18/2026) are persuasive in the following claim objections cited in the last office action (mailed on 03/04/2026):
Amended claim 7 resolved the antecedent issue with the limitation phrase “outer tubing” by amending FROM “wherein the outer tubing comprises a metallic tubing” TO “further including a metallic outer tubing surrounding the nonconductive jacket”.
Amended claim 21 to resolve proper sentence structure FROM “wherein thickness of the polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm” TO “wherein the polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm”.
The claim objections cited in the last office action is withdrawn.
Response to RCE Amendments & Remarks
Applicant's RCE Claim Amendments (filed on 03/18/2026) with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 21 that was cited in the office action (mailed on 03/04/2026) is persuasive due to amending the claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter by changing the dependency.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 21 is withdrawn.
Applicant's RCE Claim Amendments (filed on 03/18/2026) with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 22 that was cited in the office action (mailed on 03/04/2026) is persuasive due to amending the claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter by changing the dependency.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn.
However, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant's Remarks (filed on 03/18/2026) concerning the Varkey reference. Though the Applicant indicates that Varkey explains “cable geometries and component arrangements that may provide space for thermal expansion and contraction of cable components” and recites “different structural and functional relationships”, Varkey DOES disclose a “compression-based containment arrangement”. Given that Varkey discloses a “compression-based containment arrangement”, then it would be INHERENT, based on the concentric cable construction, that Varkey discloses “nonconductive jacket that includes PEEK and radially compresses the elastic insulation to limit thermal expansion”. Therefore, to make the upcoming office action more clear, additional references will be included to augment the amended limitations.
Nevertheless, Applicant's Remarks (filed on 03/18/2026) with respect to the 102 rejections of the claims are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in the RCE.
Claim Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble for claims 2-22 should be consistent with independent claim 12.
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 of this title, 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.
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, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varkey et al. (US20140102749A1 and Varkey hereinafter), in view of Jiang et al. (CN214796831U and Jiang hereinafter), and in further view of Corre et al. (US20130228279A1 and Corre hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Varkey discloses a cable to supply power to one or more components in a well (item 1000 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0002-0003_0016 & 0041-0042] shows and indicates cable 1000 {cable 1000 for electric submersible pump [ESP] in terrestrial and sub-sea well depths in mature oilfields or wells} to supply power to one or more components in a well}), the cable comprising: an electrical conductor (items 302, 300 of Fig. 3 & item 300 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0023_0025 & 0042] shows and indicates electrical conductor 302 {solid-core or stranded metallic conductor 302 of cable 300}); an elastic insulation positioned around the electrical conductor (item 1004 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates elastic insulation 1004 {soft filler EPDM polymer 1004 filling interstitial spaces between each cable 300} positioned around electrical conductor 302); and a nonconductive jacket positioned around the elastic insulation, wherein the nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that radially compresses the elastic insulation and to limit thermal expansion of the elastic insulation (item 1006 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates nonconductive jacket 1006 {PEEK jacketing polymer 1006} positioned around elastic insulation 1004; where the nonconductive jacket 1006 includes PEEK that is understood to radially compresses elastic insulation 1004 and to limit thermal expansion of elastic insulation 1004, inherently as a nonconductive jacket 1006 that is concentric relative to elastic insulation 1004 {since nonconductive jacket 1006 includes PEEK and elastic insulation 1004 is a soft filler EPDM, then it will be logically extrapolated from the present application specification in ¶[0017-0019] that a nonconductive jacket 108 that is a PEEK jacket and elastic insulation 106 formed of EPDM insulation, will then have the nonconductive jacket 1006 that is understood to radially compresses insulation 1004 and to limit the thermal expansion of elastic insulation 1004}).
Varkey discloses the claimed method except to explicitly disclose a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that radially compresses.
Jiang disclose a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that compresses (item 5 of Fig. 1 and ¶[n0010_n0025 & n0029] from Espacenet Translation shows and indicates nonconductive jacket 5 {high-strength compression-resistant layer 5, where layer 5 is a compressive layer made from PEEK material} that includes PEEK that compresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that compresses into the device of Varkey. One would have been motivated in the cable of Varkey and have the nonconductive jacket include PEEK that compresses, in order to improve the compressive strength of the cable, as indicated by Jiang in ¶[n0010], in the cable of Varkey.
However, Varkey and Jiang does not explicitly disclose a radial jacket.
Corre disclose a radial jacket (items 52, 54, 46 of Fig. 3 and ¶[0030] shows and indicates radial jacket 52 { anti-extrusion layer 52 is located radially inward of cable layers 46 and radially outward of an inner bladder 54}; therefore, modified Varkey will have the nonconductive jacket include PEEK that radially compresses by incorporating the layer positioning structure of Corre).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a radially jacket into the device of modified Varkey. One would have been motivated in the cable of modified Varkey and have the radially jacket, in order to identify the relationship between layers in the cable, as implied by Corre in Fig. 3 and ¶[0033], in the cable of modified Varkey.
Regarding claim 2, modified Varkey discloses a cable, wherein the nonconductive jacket comprises a thermoplastic polymer jacket (Varkey: Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates where a PEEK nonconductive jacket 1006 will be comprised of a thermoplastic polymer jacket).
Regarding claim 4, modified Varkey discloses a cable, wherein the elastic insulation comprises Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer insulation (Varkey: Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates where soft filler EPDM elastic insulation 1004 will be comprised of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer insulation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Varkey discloses a cable, further including a metallic outer tubing surrounding the nonconductive jacket (Varkey: items 1018, 1020 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0041_0043 & 0045] shows and indicates further including metallic outer tubing 1018 section of metallic outer tubing 1020_1018 {metallic outer tubing formed of polymer jacketing hard polymer 1020 that is added over the top of the metallic armor strength members 1018 filling all interstitial spaces outside the metallic armor strength members 1018} surrounding nonconductive jacket 1006).
Regarding claim 11, modified Varkey discloses a cable, wherein the cable is to be coupled to supply power to an electric submersible pump (ESP) (Varkey: Fig. 10 and ¶[0002-0003_0016 & 0041-0042] indicates cable 1000 is coupled to supply power to electric submersible pump (ESP)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varkey in view of Jiang and Corre, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and in further evidenced by O’Riorden et al. (US20140102749A1 and O’Riorden hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, modified Varkey discloses a cable, wherein the elastic insulation comprises Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer insulation, wherein the elastic insulation comprises Ethylene Propylene insulation, and the cable further comprising: a polyimide film positioned around the electrical conductor and between the electrical conductor and the elastic insulation; and an outer tubing positioned around the nonconductive jacket, wherein the outer tubing comprises a non-metallic tubing (Varkey: items 1018, 1020 of Fig. 10 & item 306 of Fig. 3 and ¶[0022-0023_0041-0043 & 0045] shows and indicates where soft filler EPDM elastic insulation 1004 will be comprised of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer insulation; and where soft filler EPDM elastic insulation 1004 comprising of EPDM is within cable 1000; and where cable 1000 is further comprised of polyimide film 306 {soft polymer 306 surrounding metallic conductor 302 that is a polyimide film, as evidenced by O’Riorden in ¶[0033] that soft polymer includes polyimide} positioned around electrical conductor 302 and between electrical conductor 302 and elastic insulation 1004; and where outer tubing 1020_1018 {outer tubing formed of polymer jacketing hard polymer 1020 that is added over the top of the metallic armor strength members 1018 filling all interstitial spaces outside the metallic armor strength members 1018} is around nonconductive jacket 1006; and where outer tubing 1020 section of outer tubing 1020_1018 is comprised of a non-metallic material that is establishing the section of non-metallic tubing).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varkey (as evidenced by O’Riorden), in view of Jiang, and in further view of Corre.
Regarding claim 12, Varkey discloses a method for manufacturing a cable (item 1000 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0002-0003_0016 & 0041-0042] shows and indicates the method for manufacturing cable 1000), the method comprising: positioning a polyimide film around an electrical conductor of the cable (items 306, 302, 300 of Fig. 3 & item 300 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0022-0025_0041-0043 & 0045] shows and indicates where the method is comprising positioning polyimide film 306 {soft polymer 306 surrounding metallic conductor 302 that is a polyimide film, as evidenced by O’Riorden in ¶[0033] that soft polymer includes polyimide} around an electrical conductor 302 {solid-core or stranded metallic conductor 302 of cable 300} of cable 1000); positioning an elastic insulation including Ethylene Propylene around the polyimide film (item 1004 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates positioning elastic insulation 1004 {soft filler EPDM polymer 1004 filling interstitial spaces between each cable 300} including Ethylene Propylene around polyimide film 306); and positioning around the elastic insulation a nonconductive jacket, wherein the nonconductive jacket includes PEEK, radially compresses the elastic insulation to limit thermal expansion of the elastic insulation (item 1006 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0042] shows and indicates positioning nonconductive jacket 1006 {PEEK jacketing polymer 1006} around the elastic insulation 1004; where nonconductive jacket 1006 includes PEEK that is understood to radially compresses elastic insulation 1004 and to limit thermal expansion of elastic insulation 1004, inherently as a nonconductive jacket 1006 that is concentric relative to elastic insulation 1004 {since nonconductive jacket 1006 includes PEEK and elastic insulation 1004 is a soft filler EPDM, then it will be logically extrapolated from the present application specification in ¶[0017-0019] that a nonconductive jacket 108 that is a PEEK jacket and elastic insulation 106 formed of EPDM insulation, will then have the nonconductive jacket 1006 that is understood to radially compresses insulation 1004 and to limit the thermal expansion of elastic insulation 1004}); and positioning an outer tubing around the nonconductive jacket, wherein the outer tubing comprises a non-metallic tubing (items 1018, 1020 of Fig. 10 and ¶[0041-0043 & 0045] shows and indicates where outer tubing 1020_1018 {outer tubing formed of polymer jacketing hard polymer 1020 that is added over the top of the metallic armor strength members 1018 filling all interstitial spaces outside the metallic armor strength members 1018} is around nonconductive jacket 1006; and where outer tubing 1020 section of outer tubing 1020_1018 is comprised of a non-metallic material that is establishing the section of non-metallic tubing).
Varkey discloses the claimed method except to explicitly disclose a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that radially compresses.
Jiang disclose a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that compresses (item 5 of Fig. 1 and ¶[n0010_n0025 & n0029] from Espacenet Translation shows and indicates nonconductive jacket 5 {high-strength compression-resistant layer 5, where layer 5 is a compressive layer made from PEEK material} that includes PEEK that compresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a nonconductive jacket includes PEEK that compresses into the method of Varkey. One would have been motivated in the method for manufacturing a cable of Varkey and have the nonconductive jacket include PEEK that compresses, in order for the method to improve the compressive strength of the cable, as indicated by Jiang in ¶[n0010], in the method for manufacturing a cable of Varkey.
However, Varkey and Jiang does not explicitly disclose a radial jacket.
Corre disclose a radial jacket (items 52, 54, 46 of Fig. 3 and ¶[0030] shows and indicates radial jacket 52 {anti-extrusion layer 52 is located radially inward of cable layers 46 and radially outward of an inner bladder 54}; therefore, modified Varkey will have the method have the nonconductive jacket include PEEK that radially compresses by incorporating the layer positioning structure of Corre).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a radially jacket into the method of modified Varkey. One would have been motivated in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey and have the radially jacket, in order for the method procedure to identify the relationship between layers in the cable, as implied by Corre in Fig. 3 and ¶[0033], in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey.
Regarding claim 13, modified Varkey discloses a method for manufacturing the cable, further comprising: inserting the cable in a wellbore; and connecting the cable to an ESP in the wellbore (Varkey: Fig. 10 and ¶[0002-0003_0016 & 0041-0042] indicates the method further is further comprised of inserting cable 1000 in the wellbore and connecting cable 1000 to an ESP in the wellbore {cable 1000 for electric submersible pump [ESP] in terrestrial and sub-sea well depths in mature oilfields or wells}).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varkey (evidenced by O’Riorden), in view of Jiang and Corre, as detailed in the rejection of claim 12 above, in further view of Janah et al. (US20140224521A1 and Janah hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, modified Varkey discloses a method, wherein thickness of the polyimide film has a thickness (Varkey: Figs. 3_10 and ¶[0022-0023_0041-0043 & 0045] shows and indicates where cable 1000 is further comprised of polyimide film 306 with a thickness).
However, Varkey, Jiang, and Corre does not disclose a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm.
Janah discloses a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm (¶[0009 & 0017] indicates a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm {8 μm to 150 μm [Wingdings font/0xE8] 0.008 mm to 0.15 mm}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm into the method of modified Varkey. One would have been motivated in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey and have the polyimide film have a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm, in order for the method to form a reasonable electrical isolation in a multilayer isolation cable, as inferred by Janah in ¶[0009], in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey.
Regarding claim 22, modified Varkey discloses a method, wherein thickness of the polyimide film has a thickness (Varkey: Figs. 3_10 and ¶[0022-0023_0041-0043 & 0045] shows and indicates where cable 1000 is further comprised of polyimide film 306 with a thickness).
However, Varkey, Jiang, and Corre does not disclose a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm.
Janah discloses a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm (¶[0009 & 0017] indicates a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm {8 μm to 150 μm [Wingdings font/0xE8] 0.008 mm to 0.15 mm}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a polyimide film has a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm into the method of modified Varkey. One would have been motivated in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey and have the polyimide film have a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm, in order to form a reasonable electrical isolation in a multilayer isolation cable, as inferred by Janah in ¶[0009], in the method for manufacturing a cable of modified Varkey.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO J EGOAVIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1325. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/GUILLERMO J EGOAVIL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights