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 .
Interview Invitation
Near the bottom of this office action, the examiner indicates that some of applicant’s claims contain allowable subject matter. The examiner suspects that there are additional ways of making the method claims allowable. Applicant is reminded that an interview discussion is often helpful in such situations. When applicant is preparing their response, they are invited to reach out to the examiner to set up an interview discussion. Such an interview is not required, but such an interview is often productive.
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 Objection
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 13 recites that “the cleaning agent is having a grease remover”. Applicant has made a typographical mistake. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write that “the cleaning agent is a grease remover”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is “the cooling device for cooling the electric generator” in claim 5. An example of such cooling device is discussed in Par. [0038] of applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2025/0012258).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
The term “effective” in line 12 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This word “effective” occurs in the phrase “effective contact”. A person reading claim 1 might be confused about how to know the difference between “effective contact” and ineffective contact. A person reading claim 1 might wonder the following: “my cleaning agent contacts the winding, but how am I supposed to know if this contact qualifies as effective or not?”
The term “effective” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This word “effective” occurs in the phrase “effective contact”. A person reading claim 3 might be confused about how to know the difference between “effective contact” and ineffective contact. A person reading claim 3 might wonder the following: “my cleaning agent contacts the winding, but how am I supposed to know if this contact qualifies as effective or not?”
Claim 3 recites “the cleaning agent” in line 6 of claim 3. However, it is not clear if this phrase “the cleaning agent” refers to the “a cleaning agent” recited in claim 1 or to the “a cleaning agent” recited in line 6 of claim 3.
Claim 3 recites “the winding” in line 7 of claim 3. However, it is not clear if this phrase “the winding” refers to one of the “windings” (see line 6 of claim 1) recited in claim 1 or to the “a winding” (see line 12 of claim 1) recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the magnetic element” in line 7 of claim 3. However, it is not clear if this phrase “the magnetic element” refers to one of the “magnetic elements” (see line 6 of claim 1) recited in claim 1 or to the “a magnetic element” (see line 12 of claim 1) recited in claim 1.
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 5 recites the limitation "the cooling device for cooling the electric generator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a cooling device”, but claim 1 does not specify that the “a cooling device” is “for cooling the electric generator”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the filling fresh cleaning agent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Remaining Claims
Claim 3 is rejected (for multiple reasons) 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 plurality of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). 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. However, since the examiner can’t predict how applicant may choose to respond to claim 8 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that claim 8 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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