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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Responsive to the communication dated 2/12/2026
Claims 1, 10, 19 are amended.
Claims 1 – 21 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant has amended the claim to recite:
“… wherein switching calculations comprises:
in a first state of the underhood fluid model, rejecting heat to the fluid node from the heat source and forcing heat convection from the thermal lumped capacitance to zero; and
In a second state of the underhood fluid model, forcing the heat rejected to the fluid node from the heat source to zero and convecting heat to the fluid node from the thermal lumped capacitance.”
The Examiner interprets that above amendment such that the claimed first state is an initial transient heating or step change in heat input where the initial convection to the surroundings is ignored (i.e., zero). An adiabatic process is one which occurs without transfer of heat or mass of substance between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings. Accordingly, the claim is reciting to model a first state that is an adiabatic state.
The claimed second state is interpreted to be a transient “no-load” cooling scenario where the primary heat source is deactivated and the temperature is determined by the heat released from the previously heated lumped capacitance. This is convective cooling/heating.
A review of the prior art found:
Adiabatic_Process_2019 (Adiabatic process Wikipedia archives dated September 12, 2019) teaches the adiabatic flame temperature is an idealization that uses the adiabatic approximation to provide an upper limit calculation of temperatures produced by combustion of fuel and that compression of gas within an engine cylinder is adiabatic and the assumption of adiabatic isolation of a system is useful, and is often combined with others so as to make the calculation of the systems behavior possible and that adiabatic heating and cooling occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased… e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within a cylinder… this finds practical application in diesel engines which rely on the lack of heat dissipation during the compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it…”
Otto_Cycle_2019 (Applications of the First Law of Heat Engines, Wayback machine archive dated June 23, 2019) teaches to model the thermodynamic cycle of a combustion engine as a repeating 4 step process where (1) compress mixture quasi-statically and adiabatically (2) ignite and burn mixture at constant volume (heat is added) (3) expand mixture quasi-statically and adiabatically (4) cool mixture at constant volume
Kiss_2018 (Effects of Transient Heat Transfer on Compressor Stability, Journal of Turbomachinery, December 2018, Vol. 140) teaches “a lumped capacitance model is used to computer the heat transfer of the compressor blades, hub, and casing to the primary gas path” (see abstract) and further teaches to “estimate the unsteady heat transfer, the adiabatic flow field was first computed for an adiabatic Bodie transient… the model was then marched forward in time with the gas path temperature form the adiabatic flow field serving as an unsteady boundary condition. The transient heat transfer rate, an input to the nonadiabatic mean line model, and updated component temperature were computed at each instant in time. The lumped capacitance model validated… proving its ability to estimate representative heat transfer rates for transient events…” (see page 3). Additionally, page 2 states “… a lumped capacitance model was developed to estimate representative heat transfer rates… the dominant mechanism is convection…”.
Therefore, according to a review of the prior art, adiabatic states used for modeling transient thermal behavior of vehicle drive trains is known in the art prior to the claimed invention and according to the cited prior art adiabatic simulations are “often combined” with other simulations. Additionally, according to the Otto Cycle the thermodynamic cycle of the spark ignition internal combustion engine is known to be modeled as switching between adiabatic and non-adiabatic steps. More particularly, however, Kiss_2018 teaches to use a lumped capacitance model where the adiabatic flow field is first calculated and then the model switches to the nonadiabatic model where the nonadiabatic model is taught to be one where “the dominant mechanism is convection.”
Therefore, the Office finds that the claim elements are obvious in view of the prior art.
End Response to Arguments
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Transient Thermal Management Simulations Of Complete Heavy Duty Vehicles” (Svantesson) in view of "Engine Encapsulation for Increased Fuel Efficiency of Road Vehicles" (2017-Minovski) in view of Kiss_2018 (Effects of Transient Heat Transfer on Compressor Stability, Journal of Turbomachinery, December 2018, Vol. 140)
With respect to claim 1, Svantesson teaches A computer-implemented method for modeling heat flow in a vehicle powertrain, comprises (see [Title]; and thermal management simulations need a computer cluster, where this simulation used the KTH computer cluster Beskow with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2]; modeling specific parts of the powertrain including engine, radiator inlet pipe and radiator outlet pipe, [page 18 paragraph 3]; as well as the charge air cooler and radiator, [page 19 paragraph 2]): receiving by a computer processing system digital data of a three dimensional representation of the vehicle powertrain (NASTRAN files of the truck geometry input in PowerFlow and PowerTherm on a KTH computer cluster with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 5-8]; model of complete truck is input into PowerFlow, and underhood region of interest input in PowerTherm, [page 16 paragraph 1 line 4]; discussion of x, y, and z directions indicate model is 3D, [page 16 paragraph 1 lines 11-15]) including an underhood fluid model including a fluid source and fluid sink, plural fluid nodes, (fluid source is an inlet with prescribed velocity and fluid sink is outlet with prescribed static pressure, [page 18 paragraph 2 lines 5-6]; internal flows of specific underhood parts including engine, radiator inlet pipe, and radiator outlet pipe modeled as 1D fluid streams and fluid nodes in PowerTHERM, [page 18 paragraph 3]) and executing a transient thermal model (fully transient thermal simulation in PowerTHERM, [page 12 paragraph 2 lines 5]) of the vehicle powertrain that includes the underhood fluid model (drive cycle phase of hot shutdown procedure includes parts modeled in steady state but with different boundary conditions, [page 18 paragraph 4]; where the fully transient thermal simulation is executed with PowerTHERM, [page 14 paragraph 1]; hot shutdown simulation includes engine fluid node, turbo-compressor, and turbocharger, [page 20 paragraph 1 lines 1-3]); wherein executing the transient thermal model comprises performing a simulation to simulate heat flow in the underhood fluid model from the fluid source to the fluid sink through each of the plural fluid nodes (drive cycle phase of hot shutdown procedure includes parts modeled in steady state but with different boundary conditions, [page 18 paragraph 4]; where the fully transient thermal simulation is executed with PowerTHERM, [page 14 paragraph 1]; when the vehicle is in steady state, the fluid nodes have assigned temperatures, [page 18 paragraph 3 lines 8-10]; when the heat sources are removed during hot shutdown the temperatures are calculated instead of assigned, [page 20 paragraph 1 line 1]).
Svantesson does not teach a thermal lumped capacitance, and while executing the transient thermal model, switching calculations of rejected heat at a fluid node of the plurality fluid nodes between rejected heat from a heat source and convected heat from the thermal lumped capacitance according to a state of the underhood fluid model)
However, Minovski teaches and a thermal lumped capacitance (see FIG. 2.2, [page 13]; Each individual component of the cooling system is represented in the given model, including the heat exchangers, pumps, hoses, flow splits, thermostatic valve, coolant fan, etc. A 1D representation of these components is created”, [page 13 paragraph 1 lines 5-7]; with the engine being a cluster of connected lumped thermal masses: “A block diagram of a thermal engine model is given in Figure 2.3. of a cluster of interconnected lumped thermal masses”, [page 13 paragraph 1 lines 21-22]); and while executing the transient thermal model (The transient thermal model is equation (2.3), [page 12], using GT-Suite [12] to execute over multiple time steps (dt), where “The data exchange between 1D and 3D computational domains takes place every 5 seconds”; the results in FIG. 3.6 and 3.7 show a simulation of ~3000 seconds, with key-off at 1500 second, [pages 31-32]), switching calculations (see the first box, the decision box, and the last box of FIG. 2.9, [page 21]; “Java macro starts 1D simulation of WLTC
from a set initial ambient temperature”, shows the original calculation (i.e., eq. (2.3) with original boundary conditions, [page 12]; the decision box “is the engine running” is the decision step, and the last box, “Java macro extracts results for heat transfer coefficients at all boundaries from the 3D CFD solutions and updates them in the 1D simulation” describes updating boundary conditions) of rejected heat at heat rejected to a fluid flowing through a fluid node of the plural fluid nodes (sequence of cells, [page 11 paragraph 2 line 5], specifically coming from the outlet of the radiator (7) shown in FIG. 2.2, [page 13]; where “rejected heat” is the energy calculation of the boundary terms in eq. (2.3), [page 12]) between rejected heat from a heat source (as defined in the specification, [page 17]; referencing that the mass flow of the coolant is on prior to 1500 second, see FIG. 3.6, [page 31]; which means the term
m
˙
in
m
˙
H
term in equation (2.3), is not 0, and heat is being rejected by coolant from the radiator) and convected heat from the thermal lumped capacitance according to a state of the underhood fluid model (“1D heat conduction in solids is resolved” as shown in FIG. 2.9, [page 21], using lumped capacitance, model shown in FIG. 3.3, [page 28]; the mass flow of the coolant is turned off after 1500 seconds, see FIG. 3.6, [page 31]; which means the term
m
˙
in
m
˙
H
term in equation (2.3), is 0; the boundary conditions of the walls T_w are updated by buoyancy-driven flow and resulting convective heat transfer and thermal radiation, [page 15 paragraph 4 lines 1-3]; described by eq. (2.13), [page 17], which causes the temperature to rise, see FIG. 3.7(a), [page 32]; in the last step, “Java macro extracts results for heat transfer coefficients at all boundaries from the 3D CFD solutions and updates them in the 1D simulation”, [page 21]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Svantesson with Minovski because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Svantesson discloses a system that teaches all of the claimed features except for a lumped-capacitance model, and the switching of the calculations. Minovski teaches why to use a lumped thermal mass:
The concept of lumped thermal masses is based on the assumption that the temperature differences within a solid, participating in heat transfer with a surrounding medium, can be neglected as compared to the temperature difference between the solid and the fluid.
(Minovski [page 26 paragraph 3 lines 1-6]). Minovski further teaches why the switching is important, to capture the buoyancy driven flow characteristics after key-off, (Minovski [page 15 paragraph 4 lines 1-3]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully calculating continuous temperature variation in the system and method of Svantesson by modifying Svantesson with the switching between boundary conditions that that represent key-on versus key-off when calculating 1D Navier-Stokes equations (2.3) as in Minovski (Minovski [page 12]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson with Minovski to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Kiss_2018 makes obvious “wherein switching calculations comprises: in a first state of the underhood fluid model, rejecting heat to the fluid node from the heat source and forcing heat convection from the thermal lumped capacitance to zero; and In a second state of the underhood fluid model, forcing the heat rejected to the fluid node from the heat source to zero and convecting heat to the fluid node from the thermal lumped capacitance” (abstract: “a lumped capacitance model is used to computer the heat transfer of the compressor blades, hub, and casing to the primary gas path” page 3: “estimate the unsteady heat transfer, the adiabatic flow field was first computed for an adiabatic Bodie transient… the model was then marched forward in time with the gas path temperature form the adiabatic flow field serving as an unsteady boundary condition. The transient heat transfer rate, an input to the nonadiabatic mean line model, and updated component temperature were computed at each instant in time. The lumped capacitance model validated… proving its ability to estimate representative heat transfer rates for transient events…” page 2: “… a lumped capacitance model was developed to estimate representative heat transfer rates… the dominant mechanism is convection…”).
Svantesson and Kiss_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called thermal simulations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Svantesson and Kiss_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been Svantesson teaches to perform thermal simulation of vehicles. Kiss_2018 teaches to take into consideration transient heat transfer during thermal simulation and to use adiabatic lumped capacitance model that switches to a nonadiabatic model where convection is the dominant mechanism and that such modeling was validated to be able to estimate heat transfer rates for transient events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson and Kiss_2018 for the benefit of more effectively estimating transient events during thermal simulations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
With respect to claim 2, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein the plural fluid nodes include an upstream air node, a cooling package node, and one or more underhood fluid nodes, wherein the fluid node of the plural fluid nodes comprises the cooling package node (The fluid inside the engine, engine-oil
system, gearbox, fuel tank, SCR system, radiator inlet pipe and radiator outlet pipe were modeled with assigned temperature fluid nodes, [page 18 paragraph 3 lines 8-10]; cooling package node is the radiator).
With respect to claim 4, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein performing a simulation to simulate fluid flow comprises: calculating heat rejection (powerCool models heat rejection of radiator and charge air cooler, [page 17 paragraph 2 lines 10-12]); and transferring heat rejection by the cooling package node to at least one of the underhood fluid nodes (see [page 18 paragraph 3 lines 8-10]; where PowerCOOL coupled to PowerFLOW for heat transfer, [page 13 paragraph 2 line 1]; the coupled system models cooling airflow and management of underhood component temperatures with air passing through the cooling package and entering engine compartment, [page 3 paragraph 2 lines 1-13]).
With respect to claim 5, Svantesson in view Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein when the vehicle powertrain is modelled in an off state (for heat-soak simulations, [page 19 paragraph 3 line 1]; heat soak defined as engine turned off, where engine is interpreted to be included in powertrain under broadest reasonable interpretation, [page 1 paragraph 2 lines 7-9]), the cooling package node convects heat to the at least one underhood node (parts modeled as fluid nodes, [page 18 paragraph 3 lines 8-10]; heats up surrounding air as main influence, [page 19 paragraph 3 lines 12-14]) that is initialized with a pre-calculated value (prescribed temperature is mean internal fluid temperature, [page 19 paragraph 3 lines 9-10]).
Svantesson does not teach using the thermal lumped capacitance.
However, Minovski teaches using the thermal lumped capacitance see FIG. 2.2, [page 13]; Each individual component of the cooling system is represented in the given model, including the heat exchangers, pumps, hoses, flow splits, thermostatic valve, coolant fan, etc. A 1D representation of these components is created”, [page 13 paragraph 1 lines 5-7]; where temperature of the radiator outlet is simulated as shown in FIG. 2.4, [page 15]; and heat/energy is transferred/convected according to eq. (2.3), [page 12]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Svantesson with Minovski because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Svantesson discloses a system that teaches all of the claimed features except for a lumped-capacitance model, and the switching of the calculations. Minovski teaches why to use a lumped thermal mass:
The concept of lumped thermal masses is based on the assumption that the temperature differences within a solid, participating in heat transfer with a surrounding medium, can be neglected as compared to the temperature difference between the solid and the fluid.
(Minovski [page 26 paragraph 3 lines 1-6]). Minovski further teaches why the switching is important, to capture the buoyancy driven flow characteristics after key-off, (Minovski [page 15 paragraph 4 lines 1-3]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully calculating continuous temperature variation in the system and method of Svantesson by modifying Svantesson with the switching between boundary conditions that that represent key-on versus key-off when calculating 1D Navier-Stokes equations (2.3) as in Minovski (Minovski [page 12]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson with Minovski to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 7, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein the one or more underhood fluid nodes ([page 18 paragraph 3 lines 8-10]) have temperatures calculated through the simulation are initialized to a certain heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and near wall temperature (NWT), with the near wall temperature for the underhood fluid nodes being set to an underhood fluid node temperature (quasi-transient simulations of drive cycles used coarse runs for each steady state point as initial conditions, [page 15 paragraph 6 lines 1-2]; specifically, using near-wall temperature and HTC data, [page 44 paragraph 1 line 3]).
With respect to claim 8, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein the vehicle powertrain is modelled in either an on state or in an off state (hot shutdown comprises two phases, a drive cycle phase, [page 14 paragraph 1 bullet 1 line 1], and a phase where velocity is constant and zero, [page 14 paragraph 2 bullet 2 line 1]; phases model hot shutdown where engine is on for initial driving and then engine is turned off, [page 1 paragraph 2 lines 7-9]).
With respect to claim 9, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein when plural cycles of the vehicle powertrain being in an off state is used in the method (hot shutdown comprises two phases, a drive cycle phase, [page 14 paragraph 1 bullet 1 line 1], and a phase where velocity is constant and zero, [page 14 paragraph 2 bullet 2 line 1]; phases model hot shutdown where engine is on for initial driving and then engine is turned off, [page 1 paragraph 2 lines 7-9]).
Svantesson does not teach the method further comprises: 15applying plural thermal lumped capacities of different initialization temperatures.
However, Minovski teaches the method further comprises: 15applying plural thermal lumped capacities of different initialization temperatures (for all of the lumped capacities see Fig. 3.3, [page 28]; for different temperatures of different masses at different times see FIG. 3.5, [page 30]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Svantesson with Minovski because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Svantesson discloses a system that teaches all of the claimed features except for a lumped-capacitance model, and the switching of the calculations. Minovski teaches why to use a lumped thermal mass:
The concept of lumped thermal masses is based on the assumption that the temperature differences within a solid, participating in heat transfer with a surrounding medium, can be neglected as compared to the temperature difference between the solid and the fluid.
(Minovski [page 26 paragraph 3 lines 1-6]). Minovski further teaches why the switching is important, to capture the buoyancy driven flow characteristics after key-off, (Minovski [page 15 paragraph 4 lines 1-3]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully calculating continuous temperature variation in the system and method of Svantesson by modifying Svantesson with the switching between boundary conditions that that represent key-on versus key-off when calculating 1D Navier-Stokes equations (2.3) as in Minovski (Minovski [page 12]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson with Minovski to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 10, Svantesson teaches A computer system for modeling heat flow in a vehicle powertrain comprising (a KTH computer cluster, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 5-8]): one or more processors (a KTH computer cluster with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 5-8]); and memory (computer has memory, [page 57 paragraph 5 line 2]) storing a computer program (PowerFLOW, PowerTHERM, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 6-7]; and PowerCOOL, [page 13 paragraph 2 line 1]), comprised of computer instructions that when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to (thermal management simulations need a computer cluster, where this simulation used the KTH computer cluster Beskow with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2]; modeling specific parts of the powertrain including engine, radiator inlet pipe and radiator outlet pipe, [page 18 paragraph 3]; as well as the charge air cooler and radiator, [page 19 paragraph 2]).
Regarding the rest of claim 10, incorporating the rejections of claim 1, claim 10 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 11, incorporating the rejections of claim 10 and claim 2, claim 11 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 13, incorporating the rejections of claim 11 and claim 4, claim 13 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejections of claim 13 and claim 5, claim 14 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 16, incorporating the rejections of claim 11 and claim 7, claim 16 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejections of claim 10 and claim 8, claim 17 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejections of claim 10 and claim 9, claim 18 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, Svantesson teaches A computer program product (PowerFLOW, PowerTHERM, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 6-7]; and PowerCOOL, [page 13 paragraph 2 line 1]) stored on an non-transitory computer readable medium for modeling heat flow in a vehicle powertrain (thermal management simulations need a computer cluster, where this simulation used the KTH computer cluster Beskow with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2]; modeling specific parts of the powertrain including engine, radiator inlet pipe and radiator outlet pipe, [page 18 paragraph 3]; as well as the charge air cooler and radiator, [page 19 paragraph 2]), the computer program product including computer instructions for causing a system comprising one or more processors and memory (a KTH computer cluster with 67456 cores, [page 8 paragraph 2 lines 5-8]; computer has memory, [page 57 paragraph 5 line 2]) to.
Regarding the rest of claim 19, incorporating the rejections of claim 1, claim 19 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 12, 15 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Transient Thermal Management Simulations Of Complete Heavy Duty Vehicles” (Svantesson) in view of "Engine Encapsulation for Increased Fuel Efficiency of Road Vehicles" (2017-Minovski) in view of Kiss_2018 in view of US 2018/0018413 A1 (Kaushik).
With respect to claim 3, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches to provide predictions of air temperature upstream and downstream of the cooling package node, and air mass flow rate passing through the cooling package node (The exhaust gas temperature, which is downstream of the heat-exchanger, inlet temperatures, which are upstream, and mass flows were varied using tables, [page 18 paragraph 4 lines 8-11]), and calculating cooling package heat rejection from the predictions (solved heat transport equation, [page 13 paragraph 2 lines 2-3]; using either specified heat rejection rates or a homogeneous heat rejection rate, [page 17 paragraph 1 lines 10-15]; with results provided in FIGS. 4.12 and 4.13 at [page 36])
Svantesson and Minovski does not teach executing response surface models to provide the predictions.
However, Kaushik teaches executing response surface models to provide predictions (A meta-model is generated for each of the components based upon the input variables and the output variables that are determined from executing the experimental design (130), [0031] lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Svantesson in view of Minovski with Kaushik because this is applying a known technique (using a response surface to model inputs and outputs of Kaushik) to a known method and device (Svantesson in view of Minovski) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Svantesson in view of Minovski is the base reference that teaches all limitations except for using the response surface to predict. Svantesson in view of Mitosis is ready for improvement because interpolation only finds intermediate values between points. However, a response surface provides an accurate metamodel between inputs and outputs (see Kaushik [0032]-[0033]). Additionally, Kaushik provides a rationale to combined by suggesting that transient simulations include “soak” simulations, (Kaushik [0026] line 6), and the metamodel can be used for modeling the transient simulations (Kaushik [0026] lines 19-22). One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique in Kaushik of setting up a CFD-thermal model experimental design and using the results to generate a response surface would yield the predictable result of making an accurate metamodel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson in view of Minovski with Kaushik to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 6, Svantesson in view of Minovski and Kaushik teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein the air temperature and air mass flow rate determine air temperature and mass flow rate coming from the fluid source into the upstream air node (set fluid streams with inlet temperatures and mass flows specified, [page 18 paragraph 3 line 6]).
With respect to claim 12, incorporating the rejections of claim 10 and claim 3, claim 12 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, incorporating the rejections of claim 10 and claim 6, claim 15 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, incorporating the rejections of claim 19, claim 2, and claim 3, claim 20 is rejected as discussed for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 21, Svantesson in view of Minovski teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Svantesson further teaches wherein executing the transient thermal model further comprises executing the transient thermal model with a transient thermal model test time (PowerTHERM time corresponds to physical time, [page 12 paragraph 1 line 4]); and constantly updating the convective boundary conditions of the underhood fluid model (coupling provides PowerTHERM with heat transfer coefficients and near-wall temperatures, [page 12 paragraph 3 lines 5-6]; specific coupling times provided in the following bullet points, [page 12 paragraph 2 bullets 1-2]) using models and operating points on a vehicle drive cycle profile (in quasi transient method, a surrogate model is created for the CFD portion and eight CFD points are matched, [page 55 paragraphs 1-3]).
Svantesson and Minovski do not specifically teach that these surrogate models are response surface models but Kaushik teaches using the response surface models for the same purpose (design of experiments for CFD/thermal model based on OLH, and a response surface generated for each of the components, [0033] lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Svantesson in view of Minovski with Kaushik because this is applying a known technique (using a response surface to model inputs and outputs of Kaushik) to a known method and device (Svantesson in view of Minovski) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Svantesson in view of Minovski is the base reference that teaches all limitations except for using the response surface to predict. Svantesson in view of Minovski is ready for improvement because interpolation only finds intermediate values between points. However, a response surface provides an accurate metamodel between inputs and outputs (see Kaushik [0032]-[0033]). Additionally, Kaushik provides a rationale to combined by suggesting that transient simulations include “soak” simulations, (Kaushik [0026] line 6), and the metamodel can be used for modeling the transient simulations (Kaushik [0026] lines 19-22). One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique in Kaushik of setting up a CFD-thermal model experimental design and using the results to generate a response surface would yield the predictable result of making an accurate metamodel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Svantesson in view of Minovski with Kaushik to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187