DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Language Note for Claim 13
Claim 13 recites “utilizing a cleaning liquid”. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(q) says that the word “utilizing” does not always cause a claim to be considered indefinite. It is noted that the examiner has considered this issue and does not consider claim 13 to be indefinite as a result of applicant using the word “utilizing”. In the context of using a liquid cleaning agent to clean a surface, it is clear that “utilizing” means that the liquid performs such surface cleaning through contact.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites repeating steps “until the grade of contamination is less or equal to the given threshold”. However, since “the grade of contamination” is a certain value and since the threshold is a certain threshold, it is not clear how the particular grade (assigned to a particular amount of cleaning agent) could ever change relative to the threshold.
Claim 3 recites “the cleaning agent” in the last line of claim 3. However, it is not clear if this “the cleaning agent” refers to the “a cleaning agent” recited in claim 1 or to the “a fresh cleaning agent” recited in claim 3. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended the latter.
The phrase “international waters” in claim 9 introduces some unclarity in the claims. The phrase “international waters” is political terminology. Different polities, different political institutions, or different individual humans can potentially disagree about the maritime borders of various states – and thus disagree about what qualifies as “international waters”. In other words, whether people think a given method infringes the patent language could depend on differing political opinions regarding the exact locations of maritime borders.
The phrase “sovereign national state” in claim 9 introduces some unclarity in the claims. “Sovereign national state” is political terminology, and different people or institutions might disagree on whether a given state qualifies as a “sovereign national state” or not. In other words, whether people think a given method infringes the patent language could depend on differing political opinions regarding whether a state qualifies as a “sovereign national state”.
The phrase “jurisdiction” in claim 9 introduces some unclarity in the claims. “Jurisdiction” is political terminology, and different people or institutions might disagree on whether a given state has jurisdiction in a given area or not. In other words, whether people think a given method infringes the patent language could depend on differing political opinions regarding whether a state has jurisdiction in a particular place or not.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0397096 by De Vries (hereafter called “Vries” for simplicity) in view of U.S. 2009/0256433 by Stiesdal as evidenced by U.S. 2025/0076197 by Zhao in view of U.S. 4,303,499 by Geistert in view of U.S. 2007/0170724 by Calley.
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Vries teaches a method of operating a wind turbine, wherein the wind turbine comprises a tower 18, a nacelle 30 rotatably mounted to the tower, a wind turbine rotor with at least one rotor blade 1, wherein the wind turbine rotor is rotatably mounted to the nacelle around an essentially horizontal rotation axis (labeled “R” in Figure 2), wherein an electric generator 6 is drivable by the wind turbine rotor, wherein the electric generator 6 comprises a fixed housing 57 and a rotating housing 10, wherein a generator rotor comprises magnetic elements 37, wherein a stator comprises coils 37 (reads on windings), and wherein a cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) is attached to an opening of the fixed housing such that cooling liquid can be circulated through the fixed housing (Par. 0119, 0120, 0123, 0128, 0155-0157, and 0164). Vries teaches that the wind turbine comprises a locking mechanism for locking the wind turbine (Par. 0127), but Vries does not explicitly teach steps of locking and releasing (from being locked) the wind turbine. Vries’s method comprises inserting (via the circulation pump) a cooling liquid into the fixed housing 57, which is part of a stator of the generator (Par. 0164). Vries’s method circulates the cooling liquid such that some of the cooling liquid is removed from the fixed housing (Par. 0164).
Vries does not teach that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Stiesdal teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid (Par. 0027-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries such that the cooling liquid pumped through the stator is transformer oil. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Stiesdal, who teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal does not recite that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons (Par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal such that transformer oil comprising alkanes (reads on N-Paraffins) and hydrocarbons is used as the transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal is simply silent concerning the chemical composition of transformer oil, and motivation for performing the modification is that, since Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a composition could successfully perform the role of transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao does not recite that the transformer oil has the density and viscosity values recited in claim 1.
Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling (Col. 4, lines 25-36).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao by optimizing the composition of the transformer oil in order to optimize the density and viscosity values of the transformer oil coolant, as Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that this transformer oil is an oil capable of removing grease, but since some greases are made from oil, it is reasonably expected that the transformer oil could remove a grease from a surface.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that the circulation of the transformer oil through the fixed housing results in some cleaning. However, since it is well known in the art of liquid flow that a contaminant particle can potentially become entrained in a flow of liquid, the circulation of transformer oil through the fixed housing can also be considered a cleaning step (in addition to being a cooling step) because a contaminant particle within the fixed housing could become entrained within the flow of transformer oil and at least temporarily removed from the fixed housing.
As discussed above, Vries teaches that the wind turbine comprises a locking mechanism for locking the wind turbine (Par. 0127), but Vries does not explicitly teach steps of locking and releasing (from being locked) the wind turbine. Thus, the developed combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly teach steps of locking and releasing (from being locked) the wind turbine. However, in the art of wind turbines, it is well-known to lock a wind turbine rotor of a wind turbine for the safety of human(s) during the performance of maintenance work on the wind turbine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert by locking the turbine’s rotor (and thus shutting off the generator from generating electricity) when performing maintenance work on the wind turbine and releasing (from being locked) the wind turbine once that maintenance work is done such that the turbine can return to generating electricity. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of wind turbines, it is well-known to lock a wind turbine rotor of a wind turbine for the safety of human(s) during the performance of maintenance work on the wind turbine.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not teach removing the cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) such that the opening of the fixed housing is accessible for maintenance. However, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the cooling device can be detached from the fixed housing and such that maintenance of the generator involves the user detaching the cooling device and visually inspecting the fixed housing (and its opening) to see if the housing is damaged in any way. Visual inspection for potential damage is a well-known technique for performing maintenance, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not recite that the transformer oil contacts a winding and/or a magnetic element. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert is silent about what material is used to make the fixed housing, which is part of the stator of the generator.
However, Calley teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel (Abstract; Par. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the fixed housing of the stator is made of steel (and thus the transformer oil flowing therethrough contacts a magnetic element, due to steel comprising iron). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Calley, who teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel.
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley recites using a circulation pump to suck the cooling transformer oil out of an outlet. However, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley does not teach that the suction from the outlet to the pump occurs via a hose. In the art of circulating liquid, it is well known that liquid can successfully be sucked towards a circulation pump via a hose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley such that the transformer oil sucked from the outlet to the circulation pump travels to the pump via a hose. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of circulating liquid, it is well known that liquid can successfully be sucked towards a circulation pump via a hose. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley does not teach that the hose is ever lowered. However, in the art of manufacturing equipment, it is well known that a component can be placed in its correct location by being lowered to that location, as lowering is a successful way of moving something from one place to another, and it thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley by lowering the hose into its location in the generator when constructing the generator, as lowering is known to be a successful way of moving something into place during construction.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley does not teach that between 10 and 50 liters of the transformer oil goes into the generator. However, since the role of the transformer oil is to carry away heat, the volume of transformer oil channeled into the generator is a result-effective variable, as that volume affects how much heat can by absorbed away by the transformer oil. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley by optimizing the volume of transformer oil channeled into the generator, as that volume affects how much cooling can occur.
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley is discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. In the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley, the wind turbine generates electrical energy. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley does not explicitly teach that the generated electrical energy then goes to an onshore energy receiving arrangement and an onshore electrical utility grid. However, in the art of wind turbines, it is well known for a wind turbine’s generated energy to go to an onshore substation and from there to an onshore electric utility grid such that the generated energy can advantageously be used by humans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley such that the turbine’s energy goes to an onshore substation and from there to an onshore electric utility grid. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of wind turbines, it is well known for a wind turbine’s generated energy to go to an onshore substation and from there to an onshore electric utility grid such that the generated energy can advantageously be used by humans.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0397096 by De Vries (hereafter called “Vries” for simplicity) in view of U.S. 2007/0170724 by Calley.
With regard to claim 10, Vries teaches a wind turbine, wherein the wind turbine comprises a tower 18, a nacelle 30 rotatably mounted to the tower, a wind turbine rotor with at least one rotor blade 1, wherein the wind turbine rotor is rotatably mounted to the nacelle around an essentially horizontal rotation axis (labeled “R” in Figure 2), wherein an electric generator 6 is drivable by the wind turbine rotor, wherein the electric generator 6 comprises a fixed housing 57 and a rotating housing 10, wherein a generator rotor comprises magnetic elements 37, wherein a stator comprises coils 37 (reads on windings), and wherein a cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) is attached to an opening of the fixed housing such that cooling liquid can be circulated through the fixed housing (Par. 0119, 0120, 0123, 0128, 0155-0157, and 0164). Vries teaches that the wind turbine comprises a locking mechanism for locking the wind turbine (Par. 0127).
Vries does not teach that the cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) can be removed such that the opening of the fixed housing is accessible for maintenance. However, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries such that the cooling device can be detached from the fixed housing and such that maintenance of the generator involves the user detaching the cooling device and visually inspecting the fixed housing (and its opening) to see if the housing is damaged in any way. Visual inspection for potential damage is a well-known technique for performing maintenance, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component.
Vries does not recite that the cooling liquid circulated through the fixed housing contacts a winding and/or a magnetic element. Vries is silent about what material is used to make the fixed housing, which is part of the stator of the generator.
However, Calley teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel (Abstract; Par. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries such that the fixed housing of the stator is made of steel (and thus the transformer oil flowing therethrough contacts a magnetic element, due to steel containing iron). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Calley, who teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that the generator is cleaned in a particular way specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The wind turbine of Vries in view of Calley is structurally capable of being cleaned using the technique of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0397096 by De Vries (hereafter called “Vries” for simplicity) in view of U.S. 2009/0256433 by Stiesdal as evidenced by U.S. 2025/0076197 by Zhao in view of U.S. 4,303,499 by Geistert in view of U.S. 2007/0170724 by Calley.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Vries teaches a wind turbine, wherein the wind turbine comprises a tower 18, a nacelle 30 rotatably mounted to the tower, a wind turbine rotor with at least one rotor blade 1, wherein the wind turbine rotor is rotatably mounted to the nacelle around an essentially horizontal rotation axis (labeled “R” in Figure 2), wherein an electric generator 6 is drivable by the wind turbine rotor, wherein the electric generator 6 comprises a fixed housing 57 and a rotating housing 10, wherein a generator rotor comprises magnetic elements 37, wherein a stator comprises coils 37 (reads on windings), and wherein a cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) is attached to an opening of the fixed housing such that cooling liquid can be circulated through the fixed housing (Par. 0119, 0120, 0123, 0128, 0155-0157, and 0164). Vries teaches that the wind turbine comprises a locking mechanism for locking the wind turbine (Par. 0127). Vries teaches inserting (via the circulation pump) a cooling liquid into the fixed housing 57, which is part of a stator of the generator (Par. 0164). Vries teaches circulating the cooling liquid such that some of the cooling liquid is removed from the fixed housing (Par. 0164).
Vries does not teach that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Stiesdal teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid (Par. 0027-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries such that the cooling liquid pumped through the stator is transformer oil. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Stiesdal, who teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal does not recite that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons (Par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries in view of Stiesdal such that transformer oil comprising alkanes (reads on N-Paraffins) and hydrocarbons is used as the transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal is simply silent concerning the chemical composition of transformer oil, and motivation for performing the modification is that, since Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a composition could successfully perform the role of transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao does not recite that the transformer oil has the density and viscosity values recited in claim 11.
Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling (Col. 4, lines 25-36).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao by optimizing the composition of the transformer oil in order to optimize the density and viscosity values of the transformer oil coolant, as Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that this transformer oil is an oil capable of removing grease, but since some greases are made from oil, it is reasonably expected that the transformer oil could remove a grease from a surface.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not teach that the cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) can be removed such that the opening of the fixed housing is accessible for maintenance. However, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the cooling device can be detached from the fixed housing and such that maintenance of the generator involves the user detaching the cooling device and visually inspecting the fixed housing (and its opening) to see if the housing is damaged in any way. Visual inspection for potential damage is a well-known technique for performing maintenance, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not recite that the transformer oil contacts a winding and/or a magnetic element. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert is silent about what material is used to make the fixed housing, which is part of the stator of the generator.
However, Calley teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel (Abstract; Par. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the fixed housing of the stator is made of steel (and thus the transformer oil flowing therethrough contacts a magnetic element, due to steel containing iron). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Calley, who teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel.
Applicant’s limitation specifying that the generator is cleaned in a particular way specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The wind turbine of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley is structurally capable of being cleaned using the technique of claim 1.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0397096 by De Vries (hereafter called “Vries” for simplicity) in view of U.S. 2009/0256433 by Stiesdal as evidenced by U.S. 2025/0076197 by Zhao in view of U.S. 4,303,499 by Geistert in view of U.S. 2007/0170724 by Calley.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, Vries teaches a method of operating a wind turbine, wherein the wind turbine comprises an electric generator 6 with a fixed housing 57 and a rotating housing 10, wherein a generator rotor comprises magnetic elements 37, wherein a generator stator comprises coils 37 (reads on windings), and wherein a cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) circulates cooling liquid through the fixed housing (Par. 0119, 0120, 0123, 0128, 0155-0157, and 0164). Vries’s method comprises inserting (via the circulation pump) a cooling liquid into the fixed housing 57, which is part of a stator of the generator (Par. 0164).
Vries does not teach that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Stiesdal teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid (Par. 0027-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries such that the cooling liquid pumped through the stator is transformer oil. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Stiesdal, who teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal does not recite that the cooling liquid comprises N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons.
Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons (Par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal such that transformer oil comprising alkanes (reads on N-Paraffins) and hydrocarbons is used as the transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal is simply silent concerning the chemical composition of transformer oil, and motivation for performing the modification is that, since Zhao provides evidence that transformer oil exists which is made of alkanes and hydrocarbons, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a composition could successfully perform the role of transformer oil in the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao does not recite that the transformer oil has the density and viscosity values recited in claim 13.
Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling (Col. 4, lines 25-36).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao by optimizing the composition of the transformer oil in order to optimize the density and viscosity values of the transformer oil coolant, as Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that this transformer oil is an oil capable of removing grease, but since some greases are made from oil, it is reasonably expected that the transformer oil could remove a grease from a surface.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that the circulation of the transformer oil through the fixed housing results in some cleaning. However, since it is well known in the art of liquid flow that a contaminant particle can potentially become entrained in a flow of liquid, the circulation of transformer oil through the fixed housing can also be considered a cleaning step (in addition to being a cooling step) because a contaminant particle within the fixed housing could become entrained within the flow of transformer oil and at least temporarily removed from the fixed housing.
The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not recite that the transformer oil contacts a winding and/or a magnetic element. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert is silent about what material is used to make the fixed housing, which is part of the stator of the generator.
However, Calley teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel (Abstract; Par. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the fixed housing of the stator is made of steel (and thus the transformer oil flowing therethrough contacts a magnetic element, due to steel containing iron). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Calley, who teaches that when making a stator of a wind turbine, the stator can successfully be made of steel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 5. With regard to claim 5, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley used to reject claim 1. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley fails to teach shutting off the cooling device before filling fresh cleaning agent into the electric generator and starting the cooling device before starting the electric generator for drying the electric generator from the cleaning agent. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley to arrive at the method of claim 5.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter recited by claim 8. With regard to claim 8, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley used to reject claim 1. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley fails to teach measuring a voltage at the electric generator and filling fresh cleaning agent into the electric generator only in case the voltage is lower than a given threshold and/or is essentially zero volt. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley to arrive at the method of claim 8.
Remaining Claims
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The most relevant prior art to claim 3 is the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley used to reject claim 1. The combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley does not provide motivation to modify the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley to analyze the cleaning agent with respect to a criterion specifying a grade of contamination of the cleaning agent, comparing the grade of contamination to a given threshold, and repeating the recited steps until the grade of contamination is less than or equal to the given threshold. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert in view of Calley to arrive at the invention recited by claim 3. However, since the examiner can’t predict how applicant may choose to respond the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3, the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the examiner’s 112(b) rejection of claim 3, applicant argues the following:
As clarified by the amendment to claim 3, each iteration uses fresh cleaning agent. The grade of contamination is measured on the newly removed cleaning agent after each iteration, which reflects the current cleanliness state of the generator. As cleaning progresses, successive batches of removed cleaning agent would have decreasing contamination levels until the threshold is met. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this iterative cleaning and testing process.
However, a 112(b) rejection is still proper because applicant recites that steps are “repeated until the grade of contamination is less or equal to the given threshold” (“the” is in italics for emphasis by the examiner). When applicant recites “the grade of contamination”, this phrase has to be interpreted as referring to the earlier (that is, earlier in claim 3) “a grade of contamination of the cleaning agent”, and that cleaning agent is a specific cleaning agent that was “removed” from the electric generator. Applicant’s phrase “the grade of contamination” cannot be considered to refer to a contamination grade of applicant’s later-recited fresh cleaning agent. One way of overcoming this particular 112(b) rejection would be to recite “repeated until [[the]] a grade of contamination of cleaning agent is less or equal to the given threshold”.
Applicant argues that the phrase “effective contact” in claims 1 and 3 is defined by the specification and should thus not elicit a 112(b) rejection. The examiner agrees with applicant’s argument concerning “effective contact”, and the examiner has dropped the 112(b) rejections concerning “effective contact”.
With regard to 112(b) rejections of claim 9, applicant argues that such terms as “international waters”, “sovereign national state”, and “jurisdiction” are well-established legal terms under international law, that “one of ordinary skill in the art of working with offshore wind turbines would readily understand these terms”, and that “edge cases” thereof should not allow these terms to render claim 9 indefinite. The examiner does not agree. Laws change, and concepts such as sovereignty, maritime borders, and jurisdiction are inherently political and thus open to dispute. “Jurisdiction”, for example, is political terminology, and different people or institutions might disagree on whether a given state has jurisdiction in a given area or not. In other words, whether people think a given method infringes the patent language could depend on differing political opinions regarding whether a state has jurisdiction in a particular place or not.
With regard to the examiner’s obviousness rejections, applicant argues that “the combination of cited references does not teach or render obvious a method for cleaning a generator” (italics by applicant). Applicant argues the following:
At the outset, Applicant contends that the rejection conflates cooling with cleaning. Claim 1 is expressly directed to “[a] method for cleaning a generator of a wind turbine.” The cited combination of Vries and Stiesdal teaches circulating transformer oil through a stator housing for the purpose of cooling. The Examiner asserts that circulating transformer oil “can also be considered a cleaning step” because “a contaminant particle within the fixed housing could become entrained within the flow of transformer oil. This assertion is speculative and unsupported by the cited references. The mere possibility that a particle “could become entrained” does not transform a cooling operation into a deliberate cleaning method. There is no teaching or suggestion in Vries, Stiesdal, or any of the cited references to use the cooling liquid as a cleaning agent or to perform a method for cleaning a generator.
This line of argument is not persuasive. As articulated in the rejection of claim 1, for example, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that the circulation of the transformer oil through the fixed housing results in some cleaning. However, since it is well known in the art of liquid flow that a contaminant particle can potentially become entrained in a flow of liquid, the circulation of transformer oil through the fixed housing can also be considered a cleaning step (in addition to being a cooling step) because a contaminant particle within the fixed housing could become entrained within the flow of transformer oil and at least temporarily removed from the fixed housing.
For the purpose of creating clarity in the record of this case, the examiner will explain his thinking in plain language. Applicant is claiming a cleaning method wherein a wind turbine is flushed with a “non-water-soluble” agent comprising “N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons” and comprising recited density and viscosity characteristics. However, in the art of wind-turbines, it is also known to have non-water-soluble liquid used as cooling liquid for a wind turbine. For example, Stiesdal teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid (Par. 0027-0035). Let’s imagine a wind-turbine owner who pumps transformer oil through a wind turbine interior as a cooling liquid; if any amount of dirt (such as a small speck of dirt) in the wind turbine interior becomes entrained in the flowing cooling liquid and exits the wind turbine via the cooling liquid exiting the wind turbine, that wind-turbine owner would be perfectly correct to also describe his cooling liquid as a cleaning liquid because some amount of cleaning was performed by the cooling liquid. A liquid intended for cooling could also be a cleaning liquid if any speck of dirt gets entrained in the cooling liquid and accordingly cleaned away. Applicant’s argument implies a necessary distinction between a cooling liquid and a cleaning agent; however, a non-water-soluble liquid flowing through a wind turbine could perform both cooling and cleaning.
Applicant argues that, in applicant’s invention, “the cooling device is removed to expose this opening, through which the cleaning agent is inserted”. However, claim 1 does not recite that the cooling device is removed and the cleaning agent is inserted into the opening while the cooling device is not attached to the opening. Applicant’s claim 1 recites that the cooling device is removed “for maintenance”, but there claim 1 does not specify that this “maintenance” involves the cleaning with applicant’s recite cleaning agent. In accordance with the method of claim 1, a workman could detach/remove the cooling device in order to perform a maintenance (such as performing a routine visual inspection, for example) step, and then the workman could reattach the cooling device (after performing said visual inspection) and subsequently perform a step of inserting a cooling liquid into the opening via the cooling device in order to perform cooling of the wind turbine, wherein said cooling liquid also functions as a cleaning liquid – because, as discussed above, a cooling liquid could also be considered a cleaning liquid. Applicant’s arguments seem to imply that applicant’s cooling device is in a removed state when the claim 1 step of inserting cleaning agent occurs, but that is not actually recited by applicant’s claim 1. The “maintenance” recited in applicant’s claim 1 does not necessarily have anything to do with the recited cleaning agent.
Applicant points out that Vries does not teach a removable cooling device. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not teach removing the cooling device (comprising a circulation pump) such that the opening of the fixed housing is accessible for maintenance. However, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert such that the cooling device can be detached from the fixed housing and such that maintenance of the generator involves the user detaching the cooling device and visually inspecting the fixed housing (and its opening) to see if the housing is damaged in any way. Visual inspection for potential damage is a well-known technique for performing maintenance, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of maintenance for equipment, it is well known to have an equipment component be detachable from the rest of the equipment such that visual inspection of the equipment can be conducted by detaching the component in order to allow a user visual access to an area blocked by said component.
Applicant argues that “this generic rationale is insufficient to bridge the gap. The claimed invention has a specific structural arrangement where a cooling device is mounted on an opening/hatch that can be removed to provide access for inserting cleaning agent into the generator.” However, as noted above, the claim language does not actually recite that there is any connection between the step of “removing the cooling device” and the step of “inserting a cleaning agent into the opening”. The “removing” of the cooling device merely needs to happen “for maintenance”, and there is no claim language specifying that this “maintenance” has anything to do with the cleaning agent.
Applicant points out that the examiner is using five references in his rejection of claim 1 and that “the need to look beyond five references to fill these critical gaps underscores that the claimed method is not obvious”. This line of argument is not persuasive. Firstly, it is noted that the Zhao reference is merely used to provide evidence. Secondly, and more importantly, an obviousness rejection is not necessarily weak simply because someone thinks a large number of references are used. The examiner’s rejections carefully articulate what the references teach and how the references are combined to render applicant’s claims obvious.
With regard to claim 10, applicant argues that “because claim 10 depends from independent claim 1, if independent claim 1 is allowable, claim 10 is likewise allowable”. This is not persuasive. Claim 10 is an apparatus, whereas claim 1 is a method. Claim 10 recites that “the electric generator is cleaned by conducting a cleaning method according to claim 1”. As discussed in the rejection of claim 10, applicant’s limitation specifying that the generator is cleaned in a particular way specifies intended use (see MPEP 2114 and 2115) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The wind turbine of Vries in view of Calley is structurally capable of being cleaned using the technique of claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, applicant repeats the argument that the cited art teaches circulating transformer oil for cooling, not for cleaning. This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of claim 13, the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao in view of Geistert does not explicitly recite that the circulation of the transformer oil through the fixed housing results in some cleaning. However, since it is well known in the art of liquid flow that a contaminant particle can potentially become entrained in a flow of liquid, the circulation of transformer oil through the fixed housing can also be considered a cleaning step (in addition to being a cooling step) because a contaminant particle within the fixed housing could become entrained within the flow of transformer oil and at least temporarily removed from the fixed housing.
For the purpose of creating clarity in the record of this case, the examiner will explain his thinking in plain language. Applicant is claiming a cleaning method wherein a wind turbine is cleaned with a “non-water-soluble” agent comprising “N-Paraffins and hydrocarbons” and comprising recited density and viscosity characteristics. However, in the art of wind-turbines, it is also known to have non-water-soluble liquid used as cooling liquid for a wind turbine. For example, Stiesdal teaches that when pumping a cooling liquid through the stator of a wind turbine, transformer oil can successfully be used as the cooling liquid (Par. 0027-0035). Let’s imagine a wind-turbine owner who pumps transformer oil through a wind turbine interior as a cooling liquid; if any amount of dirt (such as a small speck of dirt) in the wind turbine interior becomes entrained in the flowing cooling liquid and exits the wind turbine via the cooling liquid exiting the wind turbine, that wind-turbine owner would be perfectly correct to also describe his cooling liquid as a cleaning liquid because some amount of cleaning was performed by the cooling liquid. A liquid intended for cooling could also be a cleaning liquid if any speck of dirt gets entrained in the cooling liquid and accordingly cleaned away. Applicant’s argument implies a necessary distinction between a cooling liquid and a cleaning agent; however, a non-water-soluble liquid flowing through a wind turbine could perform both cooling and cleaning.
With regard to claim 13, applicant argues the following:
Additionally, claim 13 requires a grease remover with kinematic viscosity “larger than 1.3 mm2/s and lower than 2.5 mm2/s.” The Examiner relies on Geistert to argue that viscosity is a result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill would optimize. However, Geistart’s transformer oils have viscosities of 6.5 cst, 6.7 cst, 11.9 cst, and 13.2 cst at 20°C. The claimed viscosity range of 1.3-2.5 mm2/s is approximately 3 to 10 times lower than the transformer oils disclosed in Geistert. This low viscosity is characteristic of a light solvent or cleaning fluid and not transformer oil used for cooling. Routine optimization of transformer oil viscosity for cooling purposes would not lead one of ordinary skill to this fundamentally different viscosity range.
This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner does not use Geistert to teach an exact density or viscosity value. In the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao, the transformer oil is coolant, and the examiner uses the Geistert reference to teach that, when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling. As discussed in the rejection of claim 13, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao by optimizing the composition of the transformer oil in order to optimize the density and viscosity values of the transformer oil coolant, as Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling.
Applicant’s assertion that “routine optimization of transformer oil viscosity for cooling purposes would not lead one of ordinary skill to this fundamentally different viscosity range” is not persuasive. In the art of chemistry, it is well known that density and viscosity may change for liquids at different temperatures, and if one were optimizing the viscosity and density of transformer oil for the specific role of cleaning wind turbines that operate at particular temperatures, it may well be the case that the optimized viscosity and density values are different from those disclosed by Geistert. Geistert serves to provide motivation for performing such optimization – this motivation being that Geistert teaches that when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling. The Geistert reference is not used to show which specific optimized values of density and viscosity are best for cooling wind turbines but rather to provide motivation for optimizing the density and viscosity of transformer oil used as coolant.
Applicant argues that “Geistert teaches that viscosity is result-effective for heat dissipation and cooling and not for grease removal or cleaning”. This argument is not persuasive. In the combination of Vries in view of Stiesdal as evidenced by Zhao, the transformer oil is coolant, and the examiner uses the Geistert reference to teach that, when using transformer oil as a coolant, the density and viscosity of the transformer oil are result-effective variables that affect the ability of the transformer oil to perform heat dissipation and perform cooling. As discussed, applicant’s arguments imply a necessary distinction between a cooling liquid and a cleaning agent; however, a non-water-soluble liquid flowing through a wind turbine could perform both cooling and cleaning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights