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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 01/30/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0164670 (Holz hereinafter) in view of US 2013/0306322 (Sanborn hereinafter) in view of US 5349276 (Mez hereinafter) in view of US 2019/0170804 (Thomas hereinafter) and further in view of US 2018/0298738 (Mujica hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Holz teaches a downhole power connection assembly with safety disconnect (¶ 65) that discloses an electrical submersible pump (ESP 210 in Figure 2); a motor connected to the electrical submersible pump (Motor 215); and a safety disconnect switch disposed with from the variable speed drive and upstream from the electrical submersible pump to prevent electric power generated by the motor from traveling upstream from the safety disconnect switch in the pumping system (¶ 65-66 disclosing the visible fused disconnect switch); a first power line between the variable speed drive and the safety disconnect switch to deliver power to the electrical submersible pump and the motor (Inherent for power line to exist between the VSD the safety disconnect switch of Holz).
Holz is silent with respect to a variable frequency drive.
However, Sanborn teaches a downhole wellsite application that discloses the use of a variable frequency drive (¶ 40) while allowing for the additional use of a VSD (¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pumping system and the variable speed drive of Holz with the variable frequency drive of Sanborn to allow for smoother accelerations and decelerations.
Holz is silent with respect to the safety disconnect switch is disposed downstream from VFD.
However, Mez teaches a power control system between a VFD and a motor that discloses a safety disconnect switch is disposed downstream from VFD (Figure 1 with safety disconnect switch 22 downstream VFD 12 and upstream from the motor 14 per Column 4 Lines 23-43). The resultant combination would place the safety disconnect switch of Holz downstream of the VFD as taught by Sanborn and upstream from the electrical submersible pump to prevent electric power generated by the motor from traveling upstream from the safety disconnect switch in the pumping system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the safety disconnect switch specifically downstream of the VFD of Holz/Sanborn per the teachings of Mez to ensure that power is completely cut when needed for safety issues.
Holz is silent with respect to a second power line electrically connected only between and to the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch to determine if power is being supplied from the variable frequency drive.
However, Thomas teaches a fault monitoring system between a power source and a downline device that discloses a second power line between the power source and a switch gear (¶ 88 with Figures 1, 2, and 8). The resultant combination would be such that a second power line electrically connected only between and to the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch to determine if power is being supplied from the variable frequency drive (Mez in Figure 1 shows each individual line between the disconnect part 22 and VFD 12 while these individual lines would be maintained with the teachings of Thomas as applied to Holz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connections of Holz and Sanborn with the second power line teachings of Thomas to ensure that power is being correctly delivered to the downline application in Holz.
Holz is silent with respect that the safety disconnect switch prevents electric power from flowing upstream from the motor via the first power line when the safety disconnect switch is not receiving power from the second power line.
However, Mujica teaches a pumping system and electrical control aspect that discloses a safety disconnect switch that shunts power flowing to a motor (¶ 54 with Figure 2 and switch 205). The resultant combination would be such that the safety disconnect switch of Holz prevents electric power from flowing upstream from the motor via the first power line when the safety disconnect switch is not receiving power from the second power line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the safety disconnect switch of Holz with the teachings of Mujica to ensure that power is shunted during an unsafe condition.
Regarding claim 3, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Sanborn would further disclose a power supply to provide electrical power to the pumping system (Power Supply 205 of Holz).
Regarding claim 5, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the safety disconnect switch shuts off power through the safety disconnect switch to the electrical submersible pump and the motor if the safety disconnect switch does not detect power from the second power line (Thomas ¶ 90 and 97).
Regarding claim 6, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the safety disconnect switch includes a contactor for facilitating switching power flowing through the safety disconnect switch and to the electrical submersible pump and the motor on and off (Evident from the switch shown in Figures 1, 2, and 8 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 7, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, and Thomas further discloses that the safety disconnect switch includes a primary switch connected to the second power line for controlling when a circuit controlled by the contactor is open or closed (Evident form Figures 1, 2, and 8 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 8, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the primary switch opens the circuit controlled by the contactor when power is not detected from the second power line (Thomas Figures 1, 2, and 8 would show that when the switch is open there is not power passed and therefore no power detected).
Regarding claim 10, Holz teaches a downhole power connection assembly with safety disconnect (¶ 65) that discloses delivering power to an electrical submersible pump and a motor via a first power line (Inherent for power line to exist between the VFD of Sanborn and the safety disconnect switch of Holz), opening a circuit in the safety disconnect switch to prevent electric power from a motor attached to an electrical submersible pump from flowing upstream from the safety disconnect switch via the first power line to other components of the pumping system (¶ 65-66).
Holz is silent with respect that the first power line electrically connecting a variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
However, Sanborn teaches a downhole wellsite application that discloses the use of a variable frequency drive (¶ 40) while allowing for the additional use of a VSD (¶ 51). The resultant combination would be such that the first power line electrically connecting a variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pumping system and the variable speed drive of Holz with the variable frequency drive of Sanborn to allow for smoother accelerations and decelerations.
Holz is silent with respect to the safety disconnect switch is disposed downstream from VFD.
However, Mez teaches a power control system between a VFD and a motor that discloses a safety disconnect switch is disposed downstream from VFD (Figure 1 with safety disconnect switch 22 downstream VFD 12 and upstream from the motor 14 per Column 4 Lines 23-43). The resultant combination would place the safety disconnect switch of Holz downstream of the VFD as taught by Sanborn and upstream from the electrical submersible pump to prevent electric power generated by the motor from traveling upstream from the safety disconnect switch in the pumping system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the safety disconnect switch specifically downstream of the VFD of Holz/Sanborn per the teachings of Mez to ensure that power is completely cut when needed for safety issues.
Holz is silent with respect to detecting power from a second power line electrically connected only between and to the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
However, Thomas teaches a fault monitoring system between a power source and a downline device that discloses a second power line between the power source and a switch gear (¶ 88 with Figures 1, 2, and 8). The resultant combination would teach detecting power from a second power line electrically connected only between and to the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch (Mez in Figure 1 shows each individual line between the disconnect part 22 and VFD 12 while these individual lines would be maintained with the teachings of Thomas as applied to Holz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connections of Holz and Sanborn with the second power line teachings of Thomas to ensure that power is being correctly delivered to the downline application in Holz.
Holz is silent with respect to opening a circuit in the safety disconnect switch to prevent electric power from a motor attached to an electrical submersible pump from flowing upstream from the safety disconnect switch via the first power line to other components of the pumping system when no power is detected from the second power line
However, Mujica teaches a pumping system and electrical control aspect that discloses a safety disconnect switch that shunts power flowing to a motor (¶ 54 with Figure 2 and switch 205). The resultant combination would be such that the safety disconnect switch of Holz prevents electric power from flowing upstream from the motor via the first power line when the safety disconnect switch is not receiving power from the second power line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the safety disconnect switch of Holz with the teachings of Mujica to ensure that power is shunted during an unsafe condition.
Regarding claim 13, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica would further disclose a power supply to provide electrical power to the pumping system (Power Supply 205 of Holz).
Regarding claim 15, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the safety disconnect switch shuts off power through the safety disconnect switch to the electrical submersible pump and the motor if the safety disconnect switch does not detect power from the second power line (Thomas ¶ 90 and 97).
Regarding claim 16, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the safety disconnect switch includes a contactor for facilitating switching power flowing through the safety disconnect switch and to the electrical submersible pump and the motor on and off (Evident from the switch shown in Figures 1, 2, and 8 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 17, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the safety disconnect switch includes a primary switch connected to the second power line for controlling when a circuit controlled by the contactor is open or closed (Evident form Figures 1, 2, and 8 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 18, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Thomas, and Mujica further discloses that the primary switch opens the circuit controlled by the contactor when power is not detected from the second power line (Thomas Figures 1, 2, and 8 would show that when the switch is open there is not power passed and therefore no power detected).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0164670 (Holz) in view of US 2013/0306322 (Sanborn) in view of US 5349276 (Mez) in view of US 2019/0170804 (Thomas) in view of US 2018/0298738 (Mujica) and further in view of US 2017/0051608 (Boya hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Holz and Sanborn is silent with respect to a step up transformer disposed between the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
However, Boya teaches a downhole oil field operation that discloses the use of a step-up transformer immediately after a variable frequency drive (¶ 14 with Figure 1). The resultant combination would place the step-up transformer after the variable frequency drive of Holz/Sanborn such that the step up transformer is disposed between the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the variable frequency drive of Holz/Sanborn with the step-up transformer of Boya to allow for ample power to be provided to the electric submersible pump.
Regarding claim 12, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Holz and Sanborn is silent with respect to a step up transformer disposed between the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
However, Boya teaches a downhole oil field operation that discloses the use of a step-up transformer immediately after a variable frequency drive (¶ 14 with Figure 1). The resultant combination would place the step-up transformer after the variable frequency drive of Holz/Sanborn such that the step up transformer is disposed between the variable frequency drive and the safety disconnect switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the variable frequency drive of Holz/Sanborn with the step-up transformer of Boya to allow for ample power to be provided to the electric submersible pump.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0164670 (Holz) in view of US 2013/0306322 (Sanborn) in view of US 5349276 (Mez) in view of US 2019/0170804 (Thomas) in view of US 2018/0298738 (Mujica) and further in view of US 3122615 (Chace hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, and Thomas but are silent with respect that the safety disconnect switch is disposed in a housing with a door hingedly attached thereto, the safety disconnect switch includes a door switch wherein the circuit is open and power is not permitted to flow through the safety disconnect switch when the door switch detects that the door is an open position.
However, Chace teaches a housing for an electrical switch that discloses a safety disconnect switch is disposed in a housing with a door hingedly attached thereto, the safety disconnect switch includes a door switch wherein the circuit is open and power is not permitted to flow through the safety disconnect switch when the door switch detects that the door is an open position (Figures 1-10 with Column 3 Lines 40-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the safety disconnect switch housing of Holz/Sanborn/Thomas with the hinged door and power protection of Chace to allow a user easy access to the switch components while protecting the user from accidental electrocution.
Regarding claim 19, Holz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Holz, Sanborn, and Thomas but are silent with respect that the safety disconnect switch is disposed in a housing with a door hingedly attached thereto, the safety disconnect switch includes a door switch wherein the circuit is open and power is not permitted to flow through the safety disconnect switch when the door switch detects that the door is an open position.
However, Chace teaches a housing for an electrical switch that discloses a safety disconnect switch is disposed in a housing with a door hingedly attached thereto, the safety disconnect switch includes a door switch wherein the circuit is open and power is not permitted to flow through the safety disconnect switch when the door switch detects that the door is an open position (Figures 1-10 with Column 3 Lines 40-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the safety disconnect switch housing of Holz/Sanborn/Thomas with the hinged door and power protection of Chace to allow a user easy access to the switch components while protecting the user from accidental electrocution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 1 and 10 directed towards the combination of Holz, Sanborn, Mez, Thomas, and Mujica as applied to the proposed amendments have been reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant thoroughly outlined the proposed amendments and what each of the above mentioned references teach. Applicant then states that the combination, the Thomas reference in particular, fails to disclose a mechanism to shut down the electrical connectivity if there is no power detected in one of the plurality of lines in Thomas. However, the Applicant appears to be taking Thomas as a single reference when Thomas is used in combination with Mez and Holz to teach the ability to shutdown the power. Mez teaches a safety disconnect switch downstream from a VFD (Figure 1 with safety disconnect switch 22 downstream VFD 12 and upstream from the motor 14 per Column 4 Lines 23-43). The resultant combination would utilize the power sensing of Thomas in Holz and Mez while using the physical safety disconnect switch of Mez to shutdown the system when no power is detected along a line. Applicant is advised to further clarify any specific power line structures to overcome the rejection of record and the Examiner is open to holding an interview if desired by the Applicant.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762