DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31, change “a oil-to-air external heat exchanger” to ”an oil-to-air external heat exchanger”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 33 recite “alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount.” Applicant does not disclose which physical property is changed, nor what the amount of change of said property. Applicant Specification (4 March 2024, pg 9 ln 4-7) recite the limitation but does not give any details as to the physical property or the amount. The term “recited” does not connote any physical property or amount, and plainly means only the conveyance of information. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the physical property or amount with further explanation in the disclosure. Since no description is provided, a person of ordinary skill would not be able to determine that applicant had possession of the claimed “alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 33 recite “alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount.” Applicant does not disclose which physical property is changed, nor what the amount of change of said property. Applicant Specification (4 March 2024, pg 9 ln 4-7) recite the limitation but does not give any details as to the physical property or the amount. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended scope of the limitation. Claim 18 is rejected for indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 does not properly reference a claim previous set forth, and incorrectly says it depends from itself (See MPEP 608.01(n)). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the limited purpose of examination, claim 21 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 16 because it is in a group of claims dependent on claim 16.
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.
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 16 17 19 20 22 25 26 28 30 31 32 34 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson (WO 2008/020806) in view of Mita (US 5,181,554).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Olsson fig 1
Claim 16, Olsson discloses a cooling arrangement (fig 1, liquid oil cooling of transformer pg 8) for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger (OAEHE)(liquid cooling by oil, pg 8; with ambient air, pg 9) in a transformer (2), the cooling arrangement comprises: at least one impeller-motor device (fans to cause air to circulate, pg 2 bottom of top paragraph).
Olsson is silent on at least one fluid pipe; and at least one fluid discharge device comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe, and at least one fluid outlet arranged to produce an evenly distributed fluid flow towards the OAEHE, the at least one impeller-motor device adapted to supply a fluid to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device, and the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing at a distance of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.
These limitations are directed to a remote pump that directs cooling fluid toward the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mita fig 3
Mita teaches a heat exchanger (70) cooling apparatus (abstract) the cooling arrangement comprises: at least one impeller-motor device (fig 3, 23/24 blower and motor),
at least one fluid pipe (21); and at least one fluid discharge device (nozzle 25 with inlet and outlet) comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (nozzles 25 receives air carried by duct 21), and at least one fluid outlet (outlet of nozzle 25) arranged to produce an evenly distributed fluid flow towards the [heat exchanger] (fig 3 shows several nozzles 25 across the area of the heat exchanger 70), the at least one impeller-motor device adapted to supply a fluid to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device (fig 3 shows blower 23/24 moving air toward nozzle 25 via duct 21, c 3 ln 32-40), and the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing (tube 24) at a distance ( remote for flexibility in design, c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45), with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise, (c 4 ln 6-10).
Mita is silent on the remote distance “of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.”
Nevertheless, Mita teaches that the blower housing is mounted remote for flexibility in design (c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45) with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise (c 4 ln 6-10).
Therefore, Mita makes obvious the claimed “at least one meter” as an obvious change in size because the distance need only be sufficient to enclose the blower and decrease noise (See MPEP 2144.04). A change in size is obvious when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, Mita discloses that the effect of making the blower remote is a reduction in noise and removal of the conventional fan (c 4 ln 6-10). Similarly, applicant discloses that the benefit of the separation is the sound mitigation from using sound reducing ducting and not using a conventional fan and enclosing the blower in sound-shielding housing (Applicant’s 4 March 2024 Spec page 5, ln 16-25). Therefore, it appears that Mita functions in the same way as applicant’s disclosed invention and will reduce noise at one meter or any other distance as long as the distance were capable of installing the housing to reduce noise as well as continue to provide cooling to the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fan cooling the heat exchanger of Olsson with the nozzles, ducting, and remote blower of Mita in order to increase the flexibility of design as well as reduce the noise of heat exchanger.
Claim 17, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 16, further comprising a plurality of fluid pipes (Mita, each stub of duct 21 carrying fluid to a different nozzle 25 can be considered another pipe) that are adapted to supply fluid to a plurality of fluid discharge devices (Mita fig 3 depicts a plurality of nozzles 25, each with a discharge).
Claim 19, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the at least one fluid discharge device comprises a cross-section that has a circular, oval, rectangular, or polygonal shape (Mita, nozzle 25 inherently meets this limitation because a circular, oval, polygonal shape includes all possible cross-section shapes; polygon under a BRI refers to a shape with many sides which plainly includes all shapes).
Claim 20, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the at least one fluid discharge device is arranged in a funnel (Mita, fig 3 shows each nozzle 25 tapering, which creates a funnel shape at each nozzle).
Claim 22, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the housing is one or more of: sound shielded, thermally insulated, comprises thermally insulating material, humidity controlled, dustproof and/or sound absorbing (Examiner is interpreting this as SIX alternately claimed limitations; Mita discloses that the close-type blower has a small noise; reasonably this reduction in sound implies that the housing reduces whatever noise would be produced by an open blower / fan, which plainly indicates the housing is “sound shielded” or “sound absorbing”, as those characteristics describe the conventional ways a housing reduces sound).
Claim 25, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 16, further comprising a second fluid discharge device (Mita, fig 3, several nozzles 25 are disclosed; alternately Olsson fig 6, discloses a second heat exchanger and second fan 40).
Claim 26, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 25. Olsson is silent on wherein the maximum cross-sectional dimension of the second fluid discharge device is smaller than the maximum cross- sectional dimension of the fluid discharge device.
Nevertheless, Olsson teaches a second heat exchange coil is an obvious duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04). A duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, the addition of a second heat exchange coil increases the heat exchange that can happen with a second transformer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchange of Olsson in view of Mita to add a second heat exchanger cooling apparatus identical to the one of claim 16, in order to cool a second transformer cooling structure of Olsson while reducing noise.
It would be further obvious to reduce the maximum cross-section dimension of the fluid discharge device to be small than the first cross-sectional dimension as an obvious change in proportion (See MPEP 2144.04). A change in size is obvious when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the cross sectional area of the cooler to match the desired cooling level of the heat exchanger / lattice of Olsson. It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to calculate the heat flow required to effectively cool a heat exchanger and then modify the size of a blower to provide the adequate cooling fluid flow.
Furthermore, applicant does not disclose any particular problem solved or unexpected result of the claimed maximum cross-sectional dimension of the second fluid discharge being smaller than the maximum cross-sectional dimension of the fluid discharge device.
Examiner notes that this interpretation is aligned with applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s figure 2 is the only depiction of the two fluid discharge devices with differing maximum cross-sectional dimensions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the difference in drawing size could show a relative difference in the size of the discharge device (12). Therefore, the difference in size reasonably is attributed to a difference in cooling to different sized heat exchangers.
Claim 28, Olsson discloses a method performed by a cooling arrangement (fig 1, liquid oil cooling of transformer pg 8) for cooling at least one oil-to-air external heat exchanger (OAEHE)(liquid cooling by oil, pg 8; with ambient air, pg 9) in a transformer (2), the cooling arrangement comprises: at least one impeller-motor device (fans to cause air to circulate, pg 2 bottom of top paragraph).
Olsson is silent on at least one fluid pipe and at least one fluid discharge device comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe, and at least one fluid outlet, the method comprising: supplying a fluid flow into the at least one fluid pipe, using the at least one impeller-motor device; transporting the fluid flow along the at least one fluid pipe to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device; causing the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device; and discharging the fluid flow through the at least one fluid outlet in a direction of the at least one OAEHE, the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing at a distance of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.
Mita teaches a heat exchanger (70) cooling apparatus (abstract) the cooling arrangement comprises: at least one impeller-motor device (fig 3, 23/24 blower and motor),
at least one fluid pipe (21); and at least one fluid discharge device (nozzle 25 with inlet and outlet) comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (nozzles 25 receives air carried by duct 21), and at least one fluid outlet (outlet of nozzle 25),
the method comprising: supplying a fluid flow into the at least one fluid pipe (blower 23/24 moves cooling air into duct 21), using the at least one impeller-motor device (blower 23/24); transporting the fluid flow along the at least one fluid pipe to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device (fluid flow down 21 to nozzles 25);
cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device (fig 3 shows blower 23/24 moving air toward nozzle 25 via duct 21, c 3 ln 32-40),
and discharging the fluid flow through the at least one fluid outlet in a direction of the at least one [heat exchanger] (fig 3 shows several nozzles 25 across the area of the heat exchanger 70),
and the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing (tube 24) at a distance ( remote for flexibility in design, c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45), with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise, (c 4 ln 6-10).
Mita is silent on the remote distance “of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.”
Nevertheless, Mita teaches that the blower housing is mounted remote for flexibility in design (c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45) with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise (c 4 ln 6-10).
Therefore, Mita makes obvious the claimed “at least one meter” as an obvious change in size because the distance need only be sufficient to enclose the blower and decrease noise (See MPEP 2144.04). A change in size is obvious when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, Mita discloses that the effect of making the blower remote is a reduction in noise and removal of the conventional fan (c 4 ln 6-10). Similarly, applicant discloses that the benefit of the separation is the sound mitigation from using sound reducing ducting and not using a conventional fan and enclosing the blower in sound-shielding housing (Applicant’s 4 March 2024 Spec page 5, ln 16-25). Therefore, it appears that Mita functions in the same way as applicant’s disclosed invention and will reduce noise at one meter or any other distance as long as the distance were capable of installing the housing to reduce noise as well as continue to provide cooling to the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fan cooling the heat exchanger of Olsson with the nozzles, ducting, and remote blower of Mita in order to increase the flexibility of design as well as reduce the noise of heat exchanger.
Claim 30, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the method according to claim 28, further comprising: adding additional fluid flow to an axial region of the fluid discharge device (Mita, adding fluid toward the discharge axis of the nozzle 25) with a hose or a second fluid discharge device to enhance and/or homogenize the supplied fluid flow (fig 3 shows multiple nozzles 25 which increase / enhance the supplied fluid flow by increasing throughput).
Claim 31, Olsson discloses a transformer (2, pg 8 and pg 9) comprising: a oil-to-air external heat exchanger (OAEHE) (fig 1, liquid oil cooling of transformer pg 8); and a cooling arrangement for cooling the OAEHE (id.), the cooling arrangement comprising: at least one impeller-motor device (fans to cause air to circulate, pg 2 bottom of top paragraph).
Olsson is silent on at least one fluid pipe; and at least one fluid discharge device comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe, and at least one fluid outlet arranged to produce an evenly distributed fluid flow towards the OAEHE, the at least one impeller-motor device adapted to supply a fluid to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device, and the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing at a distance of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.
Mita teaches a heat exchanger (70) cooling apparatus (abstract) the cooling arrangement comprises: at least one impeller-motor device (fig 3, 23/24 blower and motor),
at least one fluid pipe (21); and at least one fluid discharge device (nozzle 25 with inlet and outlet) comprising a fluid inlet for receiving fluid from the at least one fluid pipe (nozzles 25 receives air carried by duct 21), and at least one fluid outlet (outlet of nozzle 25) arranged to produce an evenly distributed fluid flow towards the [heat exchanger] (fig 3 shows several nozzles 25 across the area of the heat exchanger 70), the at least one impeller-motor device adapted to supply a fluid to the inlet of the at least one fluid discharge device via the at least one fluid pipe and cause the fluid to flow through the at least one fluid discharge device (fig 3 shows blower 23/24 moving air toward nozzle 25 via duct 21, c 3 ln 32-40), and the at least one impeller-motor device located in a housing (tube 24) at a distance ( remote for flexibility in design, c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45), with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise, (c 4 ln 6-10).
Mita is silent on the remote distance “of at least one meter from the at least one fluid discharge device.”
Nevertheless, Mita teaches that the blower housing is mounted remote for flexibility in design (c 3 ln 20, 31, 40-45) with the added benefit of removing the fan to reduce noise (c 4 ln 6-10).
Therefore, Mita makes obvious the claimed “at least one meter” as an obvious change in size because the distance need only be sufficient to enclose the blower and decrease noise (See MPEP 2144.04). A change in size is obvious when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, Mita discloses that the effect of making the blower remote is a reduction in noise and removal of the conventional fan (c 4 ln 6-10). Similarly, applicant discloses that the benefit of the separation is the sound mitigation from using sound reducing ducting and not using a conventional fan and enclosing the blower in sound-shielding housing (Applicant’s 4 March 2024 Spec page 5, ln 16-25). Therefore, it appears that Mita functions in the same way as applicant’s disclosed invention and will reduce noise at one meter or any other distance as long as the distance were capable of installing the housing to reduce noise as well as continue to provide cooling to the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fan cooling the heat exchanger of Olsson with the nozzles, ducting, and remote blower of Mita in order to increase the flexibility of design as well as reduce the noise of heat exchanger.
Claim 32, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 31, further comprising a plurality of fluid pipes (Mita, each stub of duct 21 carrying fluid to a different nozzle 25 can be considered another pipe) that are adapted to supply fluid to a plurality of fluid discharge devices (Mita fig 3 depicts a plurality of nozzles 25, each with a discharge).
Claim 34, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 31, wherein the at least one fluid discharge device comprises a cross-section that has a circular, oval, rectangular, or polygonal shape (Mita, nozzle 25 inherently meets this limitation because a circular, oval, polygonal shape includes all possible cross-section shapes; polygon under a BRI refers to a shape with many sides which plainly includes all shapes).
Claim 35, Olsson in view of Mita makes obvious the cooling arrangement according to claim 31, wherein the at least one fluid discharge device is arranged in a funnel (Mita, fig 3 shows each nozzle 25 tapering, which creates a funnel shape at each nozzle).
Claims 18, 21, 24, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson in view of Mita in view of Newberry (US 2019/0242409).
Claim 18, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim 16. Olsson in view of Mita is silent on wherein the fluid discharge device comprises at least one slit that is designed to be so narrow as to alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount due to the Bernoulli effect.
Newberry teaches a discharge of an air flow generator which converts low velocity fans to high flow rate propulsion (par 0002) the fluid discharge device comprises at least one slit (par 0013, par 0016) that is designed to be so narrow as to alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount due to the Bernoulli effect (increases the airflow rate using the slit using the Bernoulli effect, par 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the nozzles (25) of Olsson in view of Mita with the slit formation taught by Newberry in order to increase the flow rate of air and thereby increasing the cooling effect.
Claim 21, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim [16].
Olsson in view of Mita is silent on wherein the funnel comprises round smooth borders at an inlet of the funnel to facilitate a Coanda effect, which mitigates edge turbulence and reduces pressure drop at the inlet of the funnel.
Newberry teaches a discharge of an air flow generator which converts low velocity fans to high flow rate propulsion (par 0002) the fluid discharge device comprises at least one slit (par 0013, par 0016) that is designed to be so narrow as to alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount due to the Bernoulli effect (increases the airflow rate using the slit using the Bernoulli effect, par 0013), which induces outside air (7) at the inlet with a Coanda surface (5) to induce laminar flow that hugs the surface and combines with the slit thereby expanding airflow (par 0016).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the nozzles (25) of Olsson in view of Mita with the slit and Coanda formation taught by Newberry in order to increase the flow rate of air and thereby increasing the cooling effect thereby making obvious the limitation the funnel (intake to the Coanda tube) comprises round smooth borders (fig 1 shows a smooth round Coanda surface 5) at an inlet of the funnel (inlet of the Coanda surface is a funnel shape) to facilitate a Coanda effect, which mitigates edge turbulence (creates laminar flow, par 0016) and reduces pressure drop at the inlet of the funnel (the reduction in pressure drop is disclosed by the applicant as a result of the Coanda surface, MPEP 2112).
Claim 24, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim 16. Olsson in view of Mita is silent on further comprising a hose that is arranged to enhance and/or homogenize the supplied fluid.
Newberry teaches a discharge of an air flow generator which converts low velocity fans to high flow rate propulsion (par 0002) the fluid discharge device comprises a hose (discharge tube with slit and Coanda surface, par 0005, 0013, par 0016) that is arranged to enhance the supplied fluid (increases the airflow rate using the slit using the Bernoulli effect, par 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the nozzles (25) of Olsson in view of Mita with the discharge tube taught by Newberry in order to increase the flow rate of air and thereby increasing the cooling effect, thereby meeting the limitation of “a hose that is arranged to enhance the supplied fluid.”
Claim 33, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim 31.
Olsson in view of Mita is silent on wherein the fluid discharge device comprises at least one slit that is designed to be so narrow as to alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount due to the Bernoulli effect.
Newberry teaches a discharge of an air flow generator which converts low velocity fans to high flow rate propulsion (par 0002) the fluid discharge device comprises at least one slit (par 0013, par 0016) that is designed to be so narrow as to alter a recited physical property of the fluid stream by a recited amount due to the Bernoulli effect (increases the airflow rate using the slit using the Bernoulli effect, par 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the nozzles (25) of Olsson in view of Mita with the slit formation taught by Newberry in order to increase the flow rate of air and thereby increasing the cooling effect.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson in view of Mita in view of Belits (US 2007/0242438).
Claim 23, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim 16. Olsson in view of Mita is silent on wherein the at least one fluid pipe comprises a thermally insulated material.
Belits teaches an analogous air cooling heat exchanger system where cooling air pipes (13, par 0055) are wrapped with thermal insulation material (par 0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling air duct (21) of Olsson in view of Mita by wrapping it in thermal insulation material to prevent heat transfer at places other than the desired heat exchanger location (par 0033).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson in view of Mita in view of Niu (CN 104361709).
Claim 27, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the cooling arrangement according to claim 16. Olsson does not disclose further comprising a visual device to verify the function of the at least one fluid discharge device.
Niu teaches a substation temperature monitor system with an infrared thermal imager (13) which captures transformer temperature monitoring picture and transmits it to control center so that the temperature can be monitored remotely (par 0025).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling system of Olsson in view of Mita by adding the infrared thermal imager of Niu in order to monitor the temperature of the transformer. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thermal imager meets the limitation “comprising a visual device (thermal imager 13) to verify the function of the at least one fluid discharge device (reasonably, temperature monitoring informs whether the fluid discharge of a coolant system is functioning and thereby cooling the transformer).”
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson in view of Mita in view of Simmonds (US 9816531).
Claim 29, Olsson in view of Mita teaches the method according to claim 28. Olsson is silent on further comprising: generating a filtered fluid flow to the at least one impeller-motor device;
Simmonds teaches a fan generating a filtered fluid flow to the at least one impeller-motor device (intake air filter 126 to fan 100, c 8 ln 23-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impeller-motor device of Olsson in view of Mita by adding the intake air filter of Simmonds in order to protect the fan and nozzles from debris and dust and therefore increase longevity of the device (c 2 ln 54-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Findeisen (US 2019/0027292) includes a cooling system for a transformer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights