CTFR 18/588,695 CTFR 92145 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The Amendment filed February 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 21 and 49 are pending in the application with claim 49 being newly added, claims 2 – 6 being withdrawn and claims 7, 14 and 22 – 48 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed November 28, 2025. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 20, lines 1-5: “wherein the power cable comprises: a sheathing comprising at least one conductor bore formed therethrough, the sheathing comprising a circular cross section; and at least one power conductor threaded through the at least one conductor bore” should read --wherein the power cable comprises: a sheathing comprising at least one conductor bore formed therethrough, the sheathing comprising a circular cross section ; and at least one power conductor threaded through the at least one conductor bore --. This is suggested because claim 1 (as amended), upon which claim 20 depends, already recites the strike-through features of claim 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 8 – 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manke et al. (US 2010/0147505 – herein after Manke ) in view of Traylor, Leland (US 2004/0188096 – herein after Traylor ; cited by applicant on IDS dated 06/06/2025) and Kelly et al. (US 8,697,997 – herein after Kelly ) . In reference to claim 1 , Manke teaches a downhole pumping system (see fig. 1) , comprising: a production tubing (22) installed in a wellbore (12) from a terranean surface (ground surface) to a subterranean formation (seen in fig. 1) ; a downhole pump (18+16+14) coupled to a downhole end (bottom end) of the production tubing (22) and configured to circulate a production fluid (pumped fluid) from the subterranean formation, through the production tubing, and to the terranean surface; and a power cable (24) electrically coupled to a power supply (26, see fig. 1 and ¶13) at the terranean surface and to the downhole pump and configured to supply electrical power to the downhole pump, the power cable installed in the wellbore (see fig. 1) and within a wellbore fluid (inherent feature) , the power cable comprising (see fig. 2) a sheathing (34) comprising at least one conductor bore (32) formed therethrough; and at least one power conductor (28) threaded (inserted/passes) through the at least one conductor bore (32) , the sheathing (34) comprising an outer surface (as evident from fig. 2) . Manke remains silent on the downhole pumping system with the power cable having a density sufficient for the power cable to be at least substantially neutrally buoyant in the wellbore fluid. However, Traylor teaches a similar downhole pumping system with a power cable (2) electrically coupled to a power supply at the terranean surface and to the downhole pump (inherent feature in view of disclosure in ¶22) and configured to supply electrical power to the downhole pump, the power cable (2) installed in the wellbore and within a wellbore fluid (4) , the power cable having a density sufficient for the power cable to be at least substantially neutrally buoyant in the wellbore fluid (see ¶18, ¶20 and ¶30-¶31) . It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the downhole pumping system of Manke by configuring its power cable to be substantially neutrally buoyant as taught by Traylor for the purpose of reducing the mechanical loading (tension) on the power cable caused by its own weight, as recognized by Traylor (see ¶18) . Manke further remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein the outer surface of the sheathing comprises: a first notch that extends along the outer surface; a second notch that extends along the outer surface apart from the first notch; a first pip that extends along the outer surface opposite the first notch, the first pip shaped to interface with the first notch; and a second pip that extends along the outer surface opposite the second notch, the second pip shaped to interface with the second notch. However, Kelly teaches an electrical wire or cable, wherein (see fig. 3) an outer surface of the sheathing (101) comprises: a first notch (left element 311) that extends along the outer surface; a second notch (right element 311) that extends along the outer surface apart from the first notch; a first pip (left element 310) that extends along the outer surface opposite the first notch, the first pip shaped to interface with the first notch (when wire is wrapped or coiled) ; and a second pip (right element 310) that extends along the outer surface opposite the second notch, the second pip shaped to interface with the second notch (when wire is wrapped or coiled) . Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power cable in the downhole pumping system of Manke for providing first notch, second notch, first pip and second pip as taught by Kelly on the outer surface of Manke’s power cable sheathing for the purpose of providing built-in cable management capability, as recognized by Kelly (see col. 3, lines 33-40) , allowing the cable to be securely coiled and adhered to itself or neatly bundled during storage or transport without the need for additional cable-organizing devices. In reference to claim 8 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system (see fig. 2 of Manke) , wherein the at least one conductor bore (32) comprises three conductor bores, and the at least one power conductor (28) comprises three power conductors, each power conductor threaded through one of the three conductor bores (each power conductor 28 inserted/passed through its corresponding conductor bore 32) . In reference to claim 9 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system (see fig. 2 of Manke) , wherein the at least one power conductor (28) comprises: a conductor core (body of 28) comprising at least one electrically conductive material (inherent feature, see ¶15: “28” being an electrical conductor implies the conductor being made from electrically conductive material) ; an electrical insulative layer (30 or 30a+30b, see ¶15-¶16) that encloses the conductor core; and a metallic tubing (32, see ¶18) that encloses the electrical insulative layer. In reference to claim 10 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system (see fig. 2 of Manke) , wherein the at least one electrically conductive material (material of conductor(s) 28) comprises: aluminum or an aluminum alloy; copper or a copper alloy [see ¶16 of Manke which states “ Power cable 24 is illustrated as having three electrical conductors 28 formed of copper ”] ; or a combination of aluminum and copper. In reference to claim 11 , Manke, as modified, remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein the sheathing comprises an outer polymer encapsulation matrix and a low density filler material. However, Traylor states (see ¶33) “ To decrease the diameter of the power conduit, a lower density material can be created by using lower density polyethylene, foaming polyethylene, or by filling the polyethylene with a low density filler such as glass microballoons , or low molecular weight filler material such as polywax 500 available from Baker-Hughes Petrolite division. At great depths, the glass microballoons may be preferred due to the tendency of foamed materials to collapse under extreme pressures ”. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the specific material composition “an outer polymer encapsulation matrix and a low density filler material” as taught by Traylor for sheathing in the power cable of Manke in order to lower the density of the power cable to achieve neutral buoyancy (as established in claim 1) and to ensure the buoyancy characteristics are maintained at “great depths” where standard blown foams would crush or collapse under hydrostatic pressure or the purpose of reducing the mechanical loading (tension) on the power cable caused by its own weight, as recognized by Traylor (see ¶33) . In reference to claim 12 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the outer polymer encapsulation matrix and the low density filler material forms a syntactic collapse resistant foam [see discussion above in claim 11; a composite material consisting of a polymer matrix filled with hollow particles (such as glass microballoons) meets the limitation/definition of “a syntactic collapse resistant foam”] . In reference to claim 13 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system (see fig. 2 of Manke) , wherein a cross-section shape of the sheathing (34) is a substantially diamond or rhomboid shape [as seen in Manke’s fig. 2: cross-section shape of the sheathing is oval shape, wherein the oval shape = “substantially diamond shape”; The term “diamond shape” can refer to the geometric appearance such as that of a gemstone diamond (i.e. a cut diamond), wherein the shape is determined by how the gem is cut; “circular shape” being a well-known shape for the cut diamond] . If Manke, as modified, remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein a cross-section shape of the sheathing is a substantially diamond or rhomboid shape , then it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a cross-section shape of the sheathing in the modified downhole pumping system of Manke as a substantially diamond or rhomboid shape as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve a change in shape of the component (sheathing). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, applicant places no criticality for the claimed limitation of having the cross-section shape of the sheathing as “a substantially diamond or rhomboid shape”. In reference to claim 15 , Manke, as modified, remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein a density of the sheathing is about 0.0188 lb./in 3 (~0.52 g/cc) . However, density of the sheathing is a result effective variable since varying it affects the neutral buoyancy of the power cable. Traylor further states (see ¶32) that the density of the insulating material is a variable that is adjusted to balance the high density of the conductors (cooper ~8.93 g/cc) to achieve an overall neutral buoyancy (approx. 1.0 g/cc). Traylor teaches (see ¶33) that in instances where standard polymers (e.g. polyethylene at ~0.9 g/cc) are too heavy or result in a cable diameter that is too large, “ a lower density material can be created by …foaming polyethylene, or by filling the polyethylene with a low density filler such as glass microballoons ”. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have “a density of the sheathing about 0.0188 lb./in 3 ” in the modified pumping system of Manke since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . Further, applicant places no criticality on for the claimed density of the sheathing, indicating simply (see ¶107 of pg. pub of the instant application) “ A specific example material of the sheathing 130 can include PA12 (i.e., Polyamide 12) and 50% by weight of Glass Bubble S32HS made by 3M™ (https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/p/d/b5005035032/). For this example, the density of the sheathing 130 is about 0.0188 lb./in 3 . However, the selected material(s) for the sheathing 130 can depend on many factors including, but not limited to, density, pressure collapse resistance, abrasion resistance, friction properties, and others ”. In reference to claim 16 , Manke, as modified, remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein a density of the power cable is about 0.046 lb./ in 3 (~1.27 g/cc) . However, density of the power cable is a result effective variable since varying it affects the neutral buoyancy of the power cable. Traylor further states (see ¶31) that the density of the power cable is a variable parameter designed to match the density of the wellbore fluid to achieve neutral buoyancy. Traylor states (see ¶31) “ The overall density of the cable may be adjusted if the fluid in the well has a different density ”. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have “a density of the power cable of about 0.046 lb./ in 3 ” in the modified pumping system of Manke since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . Further, applicant places no criticality on for the claimed density of the sheathing, indicating simply (see ¶89 of pg. pub of the instant application) “ A buoyant force of the power cable 70 can be designed or achieved due to a number of factors, such as a known or determined density of the brine 49, a material of the conductors of the power cable 70 (for example, copper, aluminum, or otherwise), and a material of a sheathing that encloses the conductors of the power cable 70 (as described in more detail herein). These factors can be used to select or design a particular density of the power cable 70 to provide a desired buoyant force of the power cable 70 in the annulus 120 and within the brine 49. As an example, the density of the power cable 70 can be about 0.046 lb./in 3 . ”. In reference to claim 17 , Manke, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the wellbore fluid is brine or a completion fluid. Manke teaches an ESP deployed in a wellbore environment (see ¶13). While Manke does not explicitly name the specific composition of the wellbore fluid, the presence of fluid is inherent to the operation of a submersible pump. Traylor explicitly teaches that the wellbore fluid may be brine (a completion fluid) [see ¶35: “brine” = water with dissolved salt] . The motivation to select brine is explicitly tied to the primary concept of neutral buoyancy taught by Traylor (see ¶35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention designing Manke’s pumping system to be neutrally buoyant would be motivated to identify the specific wellbore fluid (such as brine or completion fluid) to ensure the cable’s density is properly calibrated to achieve the desired buoyancy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 18 – 21 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tschauner et al. (US 2024/0280007 – herein after Tschauner ) in view of Bruewer et al. (US 5,906,242 – herein after Bruewer ) and Kelly et al. (US 8,697,997 – herein after Kelly ) . In reference to claim 1 , Tschauner teaches a downhole pumping system (see figs. 1-2) , comprising: a production tubing (130) installed in a wellbore (see fig. 1 or ¶47) from a terranean surface (114; ground surface) to a subterranean formation (seen in fig. 1) ; a downhole pump (102 = 110+142+140+138+206+204) coupled to (see fig. 2) a downhole end (bottom end) of the production tubing (130) and configured to circulate a production fluid (pumped fluid; see arrows 210, 212) from the subterranean formation, through the production tubing, and to the terranean surface; and a power cable (146) electrically coupled to a power supply (see ¶51) at the terranean surface and to the downhole pump and configured to supply electrical power to the downhole pump, the power cable installed in the wellbore and within a wellbore fluid (arrow 212, see fig. 2) , the power cable (146) comprising (see fig. 4) a sheathing (406) comprising at least one conductor bore (404A-404C) formed therethrough; and at least one power conductor (400A-400C+402A-402C) threaded (inserted/passes) through the at least one conductor bore, the sheathing comprising an outer surface (as evident from fig. 4) . Tschauner remains silent on the downhole pumping system with the power cable having a density sufficient for the power cable to be at least substantially neutrally buoyant in the wellbore fluid. However, Bruewer teaches a similar downhole pumping system (see figs. 1-2) comprising: a power cable (30) electrically coupled to a power supply at the terranean surface and to the downhole pump (see col. 3, lines 31-36) and configured to supply electrical power to the downhole pump (20) , the power cable (30) installed in the wellbore (10) and within a wellbore fluid (34) , the power cable having a density sufficient for the power cable to be at least substantially neutrally buoyant in the wellbore fluid (see col. 3, lines 44-58) . It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the downhole pumping system of Tschauner by configuring its power cable to be substantially neutrally buoyant as taught by Bruewer for the purpose of having the power cable which is floating, i.e. self-supporting, within the wellbore, as recognized by Bruewer (see abstract) . Bruewer states (see col. 3, lines 51-58) “ When the cable 30 is floated, there is no need for cable anchors because the cable 30 is not suspended and cannot be damaged by its own unsupported weight. Further, the cable 30 will not compress and damage the electrical connectors, as when the prior cable anchors slipped. In the event that the cable 30 is to be removed from the coiled tubing, the cable can simply be pulled out, because there are no anchors or other gripping devices to impede the movement of the cable ”. Tschauner further remains silent on the downhole pumping system, wherein the outer surface of the sheathing comprises: a first notch that extends along the outer surface; a second notch that extends along the outer surface apart from the first notch; a first pip that extends along the outer surface opposite the first notch, the first pip shaped to interface with the first notch; and a second pip that extends along the outer surface opposite the second notch, the second pip shaped to interface with the second notch. However, Kelly teaches an electrical wire or cable, wherein (see fig. 3) an outer surface of the sheathing (101) comprises: a first notch (left element 311) that extends along the outer surface; a second notch (right element 311) that extends along the outer surface apart from the first notch; a first pip (left element 310) that extends along the outer surface opposite the first notch, the first pip shaped to interface with the first notch (when wire is wrapped or coiled) ; and a second pip (right element 310) that extends along the outer surface opposite the second notch, the second pip shaped to interface with the second notch (when wire is wrapped or coiled) . Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power cable in the downhole pumping system of Tschauner for providing first notch, second notch, first pip and second pip as taught by Kelly on the outer surface of o Tschauner’s power cable sheathing for the purpose of providing built-in cable management capability, as recognized by Kelly (see col. 3, lines 33-40) , allowing the cable to be securely coiled and adhered to itself or neatly bundled during storage or transport without the need for additional cable-organizing devices. In reference to claim 18 , Tschauner, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the power cable (modified power cable 146; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) is installed in the production tubing (130; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) and within the wellbore fluid (indicated by arrow 212; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) in the production tubing. In reference to claim 19 , Tschauner, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the wellbore fluid is the production fluid (inherent feature) . In reference to claim 20 , Tschauner, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the sheathing (406, Tschauner’s fig. 4) comprising a circular cross section (elliptical or oval cross-section is evident from Tschauner’s fig. 4) . In reference to claim 21 , Tschauner, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the power cable (modified power cable 146; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) is unconstrained within the production tubing (130; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) between a cable hanger (structure that top end of the power cable 146 couples to, wherein this structure acts as a cable hanger and provides power signal to be supplied to the pump via the power cable; see Tschauner’s ¶51) at or near the terranean surface (114) and a mechanical and electrical connection (at connector 204, see Tschauner’s fig. 2) at the downhole pump (102 = 110+142+140+138+206+204) [as evident from Tschauner’s fig. 2: the asserted power cable 146, between ground surface (where cable hanger is present) and asserted electrical connection, is unconstrained (i.e. not supported by any additional means); also, in view of the proposed modification discussed above in claim 1, note the disclosure in Bruewer, which states (see col. 3, lines 51-58) “ When the cable 30 is floated, there is no need for cable anchors because the cable 30 is not suspended and cannot be damaged by its own unsupported weight. Further, the cable 30 will not compress and damage the electrical connectors, as when the prior cable anchors slipped. In the event that the cable 30 is to be removed from the coiled tubing, the cable can simply be pulled out, because there are no anchors or other gripping devices to impede the movement of the cable ” ] . In reference to claim 49 , Tschauner, as modified, teaches the downhole pumping system, wherein the power cable (modified power cable 146; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) is installed in the production tubing (130; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) and within the wellbore fluid (indicated by arrow 212; see Tschauner’s fig. 2) in the production tubing exclusive of cable clamps [as evident from Tschauner’s fig. 2 and its relevant disclosure: the asserted power cable 146, between ground surface (where cable hanger is present) and connector 204, is not disclosed as being supported by additional means such as cable clamps; also, in view of the proposed modification discussed above in claim 1, note the disclosure in Bruewer, which states (see col. 3, lines 51-58) “ When the cable 30 is floated, there is no need for cable anchors because the cable 30 is not suspended and cannot be damaged by its own unsupported weight. Further, the cable 30 will not compress and damage the electrical connectors, as when the prior cable anchors slipped. In the event that the cable 30 is to be removed from the coiled tubing, the cable can simply be pulled out, because there are no anchors or other gripping devices to impede the movement of the cable ” ] . Response to Arguments The arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot. The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the prior arts have been re-evaluated and re-applied to this claim, in view of newly found reference of Kelly. Furthermore, new ground(s) of rejection is presented for claim 1 over newly relied upon references of Tschauner, Bruewer and Kelly. Applicant’s request for interview is not granted at this time in view of the new grounds of rejection made in this Office Action. If an interview is still deemed necessary after reviewing this Final Action, a new request may be submitted. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM. 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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. /CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 2 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 3 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 4 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 5 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 6 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 7 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 8 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 9 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 10 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 11 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 12 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 13 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 14 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 15 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 16 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 17 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 18 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/588,695 Page 19 Art Unit: 3746
Prosecution Insights