DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 21st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner is “cherry-picking” features of Brummer from three completely different embodiments because this affects the functionality of the embodiments. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner is not combining different embodiments, but citing features from the disclosure of Brummer that are relevant for why it would be obvious to configure the cooler into a single unit. Frokjaer already discloses all of the features except forming the first and second liquid cooler parts as a single continuous unit. Brummer shows different embodiments that have different regions/sub-regions of the cooler which are separate, some with the bypass, and then other embodiments that explicitly states: “separate individual heat exchangers or heat exchanger blocks or may be in the form of a unipartite heat exchanger”. In other words, the citation of these different embodiments is to explicitly show why it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate, or combine, the cooling units.
In summary, Frokjaer discloses the claimed features, including the bypass. Brummer is not relied upon for the bypass, nor for the teaching of multiple embodiments combined together, but for the teaching that it is known in the heat exchanger art to combine heat exchangers into distinct regions, and having them be a single or separate entity and achieve expected results.
The rejection(s) are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frokjaer (US 8052383) in view of Brummer (US 9709344).
Regarding claims 1 and 17;
Frokjaer discloses a wind turbine and method comprising a wind turbine gearbox (15), a generator (17) and/or a converter (18) arranged inside a nacelle of said wind turbine, said wind turbine further comprises a liquid cooler (8, 9, 26) arranged to cool a liquid flowing through said wind turbine gearbox, said generator and/or said converter by way of air ambient to said nacelle (ambient air shown in Figures 3-4 with 11), wherein said liquid cooler comprises: a first liquid cooler part having a first part cooling capacity (26), a second liquid cooler part (8, 9) having a second part cooling capacity, wherein said second part cooling capacity is greater than said first part cooling capacity (26 is smaller than 8/9), a bypass conduit (implied) arranged to guide a liquid from said first liquid cooler part past said second liquid cooler part (“When the temperature drops beneath a predefined level a further temperature controlled valve 13 redirects the fluid around the traditional radiator 8 and through the additional radiator 26 with the smaller capacity, hereby reducing the risk of the fluid being cooled too much”), and a valve (12, 13) arranged to control flow through said bypass conduit, wherein said valve is controlled based on at least one characteristic of said liquid flowing through said liquid cooler (“This redirection would be enabled by the temperature controlled valve 13 when the temperature drops beneath a predefined level, it could happen in response to a pressure measurement”). The method steps of guiding the liquid through the cooler parts, controlling the flow of the bypass by way of the valve, and guiding the liquid exiting the first cooler part through a bypass conduit and past the second cooler part and the flow through the bypass is controlled by a valve based on the at least one characteristic are all implicit based upon the above recited structure and selected passages.
Frokjaer fails to teach the first and second liquid cooler parts are formed of a single continuous unit.
Brummer teaches a liquid cooling arrangement that has the cooler having a single continuous unit with a bypass duct connecting two fluid ports (Figure 4), the continuous unit with a bypass passage the bypass duct connects one fluid port of the lower collecting box to the fluid port of the upper collecting box (Figure 5), and a cooler forming two cooling units (37a,b). Additionally, the cooler formed of two cooling units can be constructed may be in the form of a unipartite heat exchanger which, in the two collecting boxes, has in each case one partition which divides the respective collecting box into two separate subregions.
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 first and second liquid cooler parts of Frokjaer such that the first and second liquid cooler parts are formed of a single continuous unit as taught by Brummer for the purposes of space savings (combining the units into a singular unit reduces space taken) since the core function (two regions, different areas, includes bypass) remains unchanged and the consolidation achieves nothing but expected results of combining the cooler regions into a single contiguous unit.
Regarding claims 2-3, Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine according to claim 1 above. Frokjaer further discloses the valve is a spring-loaded valve (“A mechanical radiator valve can be operated by a spring”) and the valve is actuated by temperature (“thermos-actuated” valve: “change the status (how open/how closed) of the valve in response to a change in temperature”).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18-19, Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine and method according to claims 1 and 17 above. Frokjaer further discloses the characteristic includes a temperature of the liquid and a pressure of the liquid (“redirection would be enabled by the temperature controlled valve 13 when the temperature drops beneath a predefined level, it could happen in response to a pressure measurement in the temperature control system 6 or the passage through the temperature controlled valve 13 could be controlled continuously in accordance with the temperature of the fluid or the surrounding”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21;
Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine and method according to claims 1 and 17 above.
Frokjaer fails to teach the valve is arranged to enable flow through the bypass conduit if a pressure inside the liquid cooler is between 1.2 and 30 Bar.
Frokjaer further discloses the utilization of a pressure to enable flow through the bypass conduit (“…it could happen in response to a pressure measurement in the temperature control system”). Thus Frokjaer already discloses the structure (a valve for a liquid cooler/bypass conduit) and the function (actuation by pressure).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the pressure limit at 1.2-30 Bar solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this was the threshold chosen for the specified cooling circuit. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the designed pressure range would not perform differently than the prior art device.
The selection of the activation pressure for a known pressure-actuated valve is a routine design choice an ordinary skilled artisan would undertake to prevent system failure or optimize performance. The specific limits of 1.2 Bar (to ensure sufficient primary flow) and 30 Bar (to prevent damage to the components) is known engineering design parameters of the known wind turbine cooling system. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wind turbine and method of Frokjaer to have the valve is arranged to enable flow through the bypass conduit if a pressure inside the liquid cooler is between 1.2 and 30 Bar because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the parameters would have been obvious for the purposes of ensuring primary flow and preventing damage to components.
Regarding claim 10, Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine according to claim 1 above. Frokjaer further discloses wherein said second part cooling capacity is greater than the first part cooling capacity in that the effective cooling area of the first liquid cooler part is smaller than the effective cooling area of the second liquid cooler part, wherein said effective areas are the area of the first/second cooler part that exchanges with the air (see Figure 7, the areas of the respective coolers are what differentiates their respective cooling capacity).
Regarding claims 12-13, Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine according to claim 1 above. Frokjaer further discloses the first liquid cooler part and second liquid cooler part are connected by a common liquid conduit arranged so that liquid flowing through the first cooler part is exiting in said common liquid conduit and so that liquid entering said second liquid cooler part is entering from the common liquid conduit (see Figure 7), and the bypass conduit is fluidly connected to the common liquid conduit (the bypass conduit is implicit and for it to fulfill the bypassing function it is connected to the common liquid conduit in Figure 7).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 22-23, Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine and method according to claims 1 and 17 above. Frokjaer further discloses the liquid is oil or antifreeze-containing liquid (claims 8-9), the liquid cooler is passively cooled and is arranged outside of the nacelle (see Figure 3 with the cooler arranged outside the nacelle on the top and it is passively cooled by the air flow along the top of the nacelle).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frokjaer (US 8052383) in view of Brummer (US 9709344), and further in view of Johnson (US 20130183138).
Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine and method according to claims 1 and 17 above.
Frokjaer fails to teach the characteristic is a viscosity of the liquid flowing through the liquid cooler.
Frokjaer further discloses the temperature is related to the liquid viscosity (“If the fluid in the first temperature control system is cooled too much, the viscosity or other characteristics of the fluid can change to a point where the fluids ability to transport heat in the temperature control system is reduced”). Johnson teaches a wind turbine cooling structure which utilizes a liquid cooling circuit and the control thereof utilizes a series of sensors that measure parameters of the liquid, including viscosity (Paragraphs 30-31 and 44).
Because Frokjaer discloses the utilization of temperature/pressure monitoring of the liquid and states that the viscosity of the liquid is related to the temperature, and because Johnson teaches the utilization of viscosity sensors, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine and method of Frokjaer such that the characteristic is a viscosity of the liquid flowing through the liquid cooler as taught by Johnson for the purposes of controlling the flow of liquid through the liquid cooler thereby optimizing use and reducing wear of the wind turbine components.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frokjaer (US 8052383) in view of Brummer (US 9709344), and further in view of Fang (US 6793012).
Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine according to claim 1 above.
Frokjaer fails to teach the second part cooling capacity is greater than the first part cooling capacity in that first part cooling channels through said first liquid cooler part are shorter than second part cooling channels through said second liquid cooler part, wherein said first liquid cooler part has first part cooling channels with a smallest cross-sectional area taken along a smallest cross-section of the first part cooling channels and said second liquid cooler part has second part cooling channels with a smallest cross-sectional area taken along a smallest cross-section of the second part cooling channels, and wherein said second part cooling capacity is greater than first part cooling capacity in that the smallest cross-sectional area of the first part cooling channels is bigger than the smallest cross-sectional area of the second part cooling channels of the second liquid cooler part.
Fang teaches a cooling assembly with multiple cooling regions. Fang teaches “For certain applications and in particular for fluids with lower viscosity, it may be advantageous to provide substantially equal-sized passages, so that flow through each of the passages is substantially the same and promotes a greater degree of heat transfer. In alternative embodiments, a tube may be divided into one or more first passages having a first cross-sectional area and one or more second passages having a second cross-sectional area (having, for example, a larger, smaller, or different shape with respect to the first passages). In addition, the dividers of the tube may extend horizontally, vertically, diagonally, combinations thereof, or otherwise”. Additionally, in the low temperature area where the kinetic viscosity of the transmission oil 4 is high, the flow passage cross-sectional area A5 of the bypass flow passage can be adjusted to be larger. Therefore, a sufficient bypass amount of the transmission oil/anti-freeze bypassing flow passage can be secured. Pressure losses can be suppressed from being too large. On the other hand, in the higher temperature range where the kinetic viscosity of the transmission oil/anti-freeze is low, the flow passage cross-sectional area of the bypass flow passage can be smaller. As a result, the heat exchange amount Q in the heat exchanger can be increased. The utilization of different cross-sectional areas and passage geometry/length for the respective cooling areas is therefore known. Moreover, since the sizes of the first/second liquid cooler parts of Frokjaer differ, the passages of the smaller unit would likely be smaller.
Because Frokjaer discloses a wind turbine cooling system with a first liquid cooler part having a first part cooling capacity and a second liquid cooler part having a second part cooling capacity with said second part cooling capacity is greater than said first part cooling capacity, and because Fang teaches that in the liquid cooling art that different cooling regions can have different length and cross-sections for the respective passages/channels, and that the principles of viscosity that Fang teaches would apply to the heat exchanger of Frokjaer, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine of Frokjaer such that the second part cooling capacity is greater than the first part cooling capacity in that first part cooling channels through said first liquid cooler part are shorter than second part cooling channels through said second liquid cooler part, wherein said first liquid cooler part has first part cooling channels with a smallest cross-sectional area taken along a smallest cross-section of the first part cooling channels and said second liquid cooler part has second part cooling channels with a smallest cross-sectional area taken along a smallest cross-section of the second part cooling channels, and wherein said second part cooling capacity is greater than first part cooling capacity in that the smallest cross-sectional area of the first part cooling channels is bigger than the smallest cross-sectional area of the second part cooling channels of the second liquid cooler part as taught by Fang for the purposes of allowing for improved heat transfer and less clogging through the optimization of geometry of the passages for the respective temperature areas (and therefore respective viscosities).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frokjaer (US 8052383) in view of Brummer (US 9709344), and further in view of Elder (US 9658005).
Frokjaer in view of Brummer teaches the wind turbine according to claim 1 above.
Frokjaer fails to teach the smallest cross-sectional area of said bypass conduit is greater than the smallest cross-sectional area of second part cooling channels of said liquid cooler part.
Elder teaches a liquid cooling heat exchange system which includes bypass channels (32) which are greater in cross-sectional area relative to the cross-sectional area of second part cooling channels (34) of a second liquid cooler part (Figure 4).
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 wind turbine of Frokjaer such that the smallest cross-sectional area of said bypass conduit is greater than the smallest cross-sectional area of second part cooling channels of said liquid cooler part as taught by Elder for the purposes of improved heat transfer and allowing for the liquid to flow at increased viscosities (through larger cross-sectional area).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745