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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haesloop, et al. US4435132 in view of Bowles, et al. US2008/0173441.
Regarding claim 1, Haesloop, et al. teaches an elevating apparatus (Figure 1) for elevating and lowering a submersible pump 26 in a pump column 14, the submersible pump being used to deliver liquefied gas R, the elevating apparatus comprising:
a cable 36 including multiple split cables (Three electrical cables 40 Column 4: 51-53. These three electrical cables are considered to be the claimed multiple split cables, since three constitutes “multiple” and the term “split cables” is given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation of being cables that diverge from the other cables) and multiple coupling links 110 (Figure 3 shows at least four of these, in which connecting 110 holds 74 together, which links the multiple split cables) configured to detachably couple the multiple split cables to each other alternately in series with each other and located in the pump column (wherein Figure 1 shows two 74 held in series on 36 in the pump column14), each of the multiple coupling links including a projecting portion (wherein the horizontally extending portion of 110 is the projecting portion) that extends laterally; and
a take-up device 70 coupled to the cable;
a stopper 74 having a shape (the shape shown in Figure 1) that engages each of the multiple coupling links (via 66 and connector 69) to prevent at least one of the multiple split cables from falling into the pump column (since cable 42 is connected to connector 69 that is connected to eyebolt 70, with adjuster 72. Eyebolt 70 and adjuster 72 provide linear support for the cables and the pump. Column 5: 4-13 “The lift cable 44 is placed through a slot in the cover 66 and the end thereof is wound around a plurality of hooks 68 depending downwardly from the bottom of the upper head plate 65. The support cable 42 is fixedly connected to a lifting connector 69 which in turn is connected to a pump lifting eye bolt 70 passing through cover 66. The eye bolt embodies a tension adjuster 72. A housing 73 extends over the top of the pipe 62 and is fixed to the upper head plate 65.”).
Haesloop, et al. does not teach the multiple split cables and multiple coupling links are detachably coupled to each other at longitudinal ends thereof; the multiple split cables and the multiple coupling links being arranged alternately in series with each other and located in the pump column.
Bowles, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a downhole tool 28 to be held in a column 36 with cables 64, 70, and 62 detachable held together in series with connectors 60 and 72 (wherein 60 and 72 each are shown to be detachably connected to their respective cables 70 and 64 in Figures 2-10), to provide the sequence of adding cables and connectors/tools in the column 36 (as shown in sequence in Figure 2-10) to allow connection and lowering below a tool trap 52 ¶0027. Cables 64 and 70 are described as cables ¶0023, and ¶0033 " In several exemplary embodiments, the flexible interconnect 70 is substantially similar to the flexible interconnect 64”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Haesloop, et al.’s split cables in view of Bowles et al.’s multiple split cables detachably connected alternate in series with each other to the multiple coupling links with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling multiple such lengths of tools/coupling links and lengths of cables to be lowered into the column.
Haesloop, et al. teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2. The elevating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the multiple split cables has a length shorter than a height of the pump column in its longitudinal direction (as shown in Figure 1, where 36 is shorter than the length of 14, due to the combination of 36 and pump 26 occupying the length of 14).
Regarding claim 4. The elevating apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the stopper 72 is larger than a hole (the through bore in 66, wherein 72 is necessarily larger since it is a tension adjuster) formed in an upper lid 66 covering an upper opening (top of 62) of a purge container (purge container includes 62 and 24) coupled to the pump column.
Regarding claim 5. The elevating apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a support plate 22 placed on an upper end of the pump column (at 20), the support plate having an opening 64 having a shape that allows the multiple split cable sand the multiple coupling links to pass therethrough (as shown in Figure 1 dashed lines versus the solid line where 26 and the cables can be raised and lowered, with 74 and the cables being raised and lowered into 64) while the shape does not allow the stopper to pass therethrough (due to cover 66 being above 62 and situated to be mounted on top of 62, as described in Column 5: 4).
Regarding claim 6. The elevating apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a head plate 22 (it is noted that claims 5 and 6 have different dependencies, thus in this case, 22 is be interpreted to be the head plate for claim 6) placed on an upper end of the pump column, wherein the head plate has a closing member 74 having a shape that covers an upper opening 64 of the pump column, and a movable rod 69 (which is elongated, thus considered a rod) supported by the closing member (supported from the bottom), the movable rod is movable in a vertical direction relative to the closing member, and the movable rod has a lower end configured to be coupled to one of the multiple split cables (at 42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that Haesloop does not teach a projection portion and a stopper configured to engage the projecting portion are not persuasive. Stopper 74 engages in projecting portions 106, 108, and 110 for the cables 40, 42, and 44. The claims do not have limitations directed towards how the projecting portions engage with the stopper or structural limitations for the projecting portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-15, and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Haesloop does not teach the method of carrying a submersible pump into a pump column, including, in combination, the method steps including lowering the submersible pump and the cable in the pump column by the take-up device and simultaneously coupling a remainder of the multiple split cables in series, until the multiple split cables and the multiple coupling links are arranged alternately in series with each other in the pump column; wherein coupling the remainder of the multiple split cable in series one by one to the cable comprises repeating a load bearing operation and a cable coupling operation alternately until the submersible pump is placed onto a suction valve located at the bottom of the pump column. Similarly, Haesloop does not teach the opposite method of pulling a submersible pump out of a pump column, in combination with the elevating the pump and multiple split cables and simultaneously removing the multiple split cables one by one, wherein removing the split cable one by one comprises repeating a load bearing and cable removing operation alternately until the pump is out of the pump column.
Modification would not have been obvious, since that would have required impermissible hindsight reasoning, and would have rendered Haesloop inoperable for its intended purpose of being lowered using a hoist and lift cable (Haesloop Column 6: 61-Column 7: 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 3/3/2026