DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/25.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 11-14 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 11-14 are new.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 112 and Claim Interpretation
5. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/17/25, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and claim interpretation of claims 7-10 has been withdrawn.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitations of the newly added claims are not an abstract mathematical idea, but rather improves a numerical simulation technique. The applicant argues that the wind stress coefficient used in conventional numerical simulation methods is replaced with an improved wind stress coefficient expression that better matches practical conditions and has broad applicability. (Remarks: pages 5-6)
7. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the applicant states at the beginning of their remarks that the technical features of claims 1-6 that have been canceled are now rewritten in the new claims 11-14. The examiner notes that the claim language that is rewritten in the new claims are still abstract, where they would fall within the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant points to the wind stress coefficient expression expressed as
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as being an expression that better matches practical conditions and has broad applicability. The examiner notes that the limitation that states “constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes an average wind speed at a height of 10 m above a water surface, F denotes a fetch, and d denotes a water depth” would still fall within the groupings of an abstract idea. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation is constructing a wind stress coefficient expression expressed as
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The rejection of other limitations of the claim and the newly added claims are shown below.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
8. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the Wu reference does teach a fetch and water depth of claim 11 and that the prior art of record doesn’t teach constructing a wind stress coefficient expression by comprehensively considering impacts of wind speed, fetch, and water depth. (Remarks: pages 6-8)
9. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the Wu teaches “a fetch” as shown in the previous office action, see Wu Pg. 9704, sec. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Combining (2) and the logarithmic wind-velocity distribution, a correlation equation was obtained [Wu, 1969a] between wind-stress coefficient and wind velocity,
PNG
media_image2.png
52
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the subscript of Cz and Uz refers to the anemometer height Z, which located within the constant-flux layer varies with fetch [Wu, 1971]; K is the Karman universal constant, K = 0.4; F is in the form of the Froude number. Therefore, this scaling law relates the wind-stress coefficient to both the growth of local surface roughness (governed primarily by the wind velocity) and the development of the atmospheric surface layer (governed primarily by the fetch).
Also, the Guo-Qing et al. reference was used to reject “a water depth” as shown in the previous office action, see Guo-Qing et al. (Pg. 8, last paragraph “The time series comparison of flow velocity u and v before and after filtering is shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 10a and Fig. 10b, corresponding to the water depth of 23.69m, and, etc.”)];
Also, the Fan et al. reference teaches the limitation of “step 1.1 considering impacts of wind speed, fetch, and water depth, and constructing a wind stress coefficient expression by
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, see Fan et al. (Pg. 1029, sec. e Full wind–wave–current coupling, 2nd paragraph, “Upwelling due to the Ekman divergence caused by the cyclonic winds (positive wind stress curl) and oscillations of the isotherms at a nearinertial period (the inertial period is 28.8 h for this study) are evident following the storm passage. Figure 13c shows the difference between the temperatures in experiment D and the control experiment. The warmer (colder) temperature anomalies in the thermocline indicate that the upwelling (downwelling) rates are less in experiment D compared to the control experiment. This clearly implies that the wind–wave–current interaction processes at the air–sea interface affect not only the upper mixed layer but also the thermocline below”, Fan et al. Pg. 1031, left col., 1st full paragraph, “In the control experiment, the wave and ocean models were forced by the wind stress calculated in the wave boundary layer model. In experiment A, the effect of the air–sea momentum flux budget on the momentum flux into the subsurface currents was included. In experiments B and C, different feedback mechanisms of the ocean current on the wind stress and the wave field were analyzed. In experiment D, the effect of full wind–wave–current coupling was investigated.”, Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claim 11
Regarding step 1, claim 11 is directed towards a method, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 recites “step 1: constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “step 1.1: considering impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth, and constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation is constructing a wind stress coefficient expression expressed as
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “step 1.2: representing the wind stress coefficient using three dimensionless parameters, that is, a fetch Froude number, a fetch Reynolds number and a relative water depth, and transforming the formula (2) into an expression in formula (3) in a dimensionless form;
PNG
media_image3.png
53
191
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation is transforming the formula (2) into an expression in formula (3) in a dimensionless form. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “Wherein u10/(gF) is the fetch Froude number, u10F/vW is the fetch Reynolds number, d/F is the relative water depth, g is gravitational acceleration, vw is a viscosity coefficient of water, Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “in step 1, for a logarithmic function, when a base is greater than 1, using a natural logarithm Ln() as a fitting function”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “and considering nonlinear impacts of the average wind speed, the water depth and the fetch on the wind stress coefficient, constructing the form of the wind stress coefficient expression as a form expressed by formula (4)
PNG
media_image4.png
56
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation is constructing the form of the wind stress coefficient expression as a form expressed by formula (4). Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “wherein ai to a5 are undetermined coefficients, u10/(gF) is the fetch Froude number, u10F/vW is the fetch Reynolds number, d/F is the relative water depth, g is gravitational acceleration, vw is a viscosity coefficient of water, Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “step 2: determining a concrete form of the wind stress coefficient expression”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “selecting three types of data: wind tunnel test data, measured data of a water with a limited water depth and fetch and measured data of a water with deep water and a large fetch”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “and constructing a data set for fitting”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “and performing nonlinear regression analysis on a relationship between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F based on the constructed data set to obtain a fitting expression shown in formula (5), wherein a correlation coefficient is 0.78, a determination coefficient is 0.62, and a fitting root mean square error is 0.27;
PNG
media_image5.png
81
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation is performing nonlinear regression analysis between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “Step 3: verifying superiority of the wind stress coefficient expression”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “selecting a verification object, using a numerical simulation method to establish a three-dimensional numerical model of a wind-driven current of the verification object by using a conventional wind stress coefficient expression of the formula (1) and the formula (5) respectively”. This limitation is selecting a verification object, using a numerical simulation method. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “and comparing a simulated water level of the three-dimensional numerical model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (1) and a simulated water level of the three-dimensional numerical model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (5) with a measured water level to verify superiority of the formula (5);
PNG
media_image6.png
29
170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “Wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, and both a1 and a2 are coefficients greater than 0”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites “and step 4: applying the formula (5) to the numerical simulation method to form a three-dimensional data model of a wind-driven current for data simulation of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the claim recites the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor and memory amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the three-dimensional data model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (5) is used to simulate water levels of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein in step 1.1, a water body forms wind-induced waves and surface currents under the action of wind”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 13 recites “and a total wind stress in a water-air boundary layer is composed of a turbulent shear stress and a viscous shear stress”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the turbulent shear stress is related to disturbance of waves to airflow”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 13 recites “and the viscous shear stress is related to the surface currents”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 13 recites “the turbulent shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between turbulent terms in airflow and gravity waves, wherein the turbulent shear stress is an inertial force driving wave motion, wave gravity is a restoring force, and thus a Froude number is used to represent a strength of interaction between the turbulent terms in airflow and waves”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 13 recites “and the viscous shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between viscous terms in airflow and the surface currents, wherein the viscous shear stress is a driving force, a viscous force generated after water surface slip is a restoring force, and thus a Reynolds number is used to represent the strength of the interaction between the viscous terms and the surface currents.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein, in step 1.2, considering a case of a unit width water body, for any fetch F, the fetch Froude number u10/(gF) is used to represent the strength of interaction between the turbulent shear stress of airflow and waves in a range of the fetch F”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites “the fetch Reynolds number u10F/vW is used to represent the strength of interaction between the viscous shear stress of airflow and the surface currents in the range of the fetch”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites “and the relative water depth d/F is constructed as a water depth characteristic of the water body.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 11-14 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
online reference Wind-Stress Coefficients Over Sea Surface From Breeze to Hurricane, written by Wu in view of online reference Adjoint Parameter Estimation of Time-Varying Wind Drag Coefficient for an Ekman Model, written by Guo-Qing et al. in further view of online reference The Effect of Wind–Wave–Current Interaction on Air–Sea Momentum Fluxes and Ocean Response in Tropical Cyclones, written by Fan et al.
With respect to claim 11 Wu discloses “step 1: constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression” as [Wu (Pg. 9704, sec. 2, 1st paragraph, “The following formula has been proposed [Wu, 1980] to represent wind-stress coefficients over the sea surface under 'light' winds, etc.”, Eqn. 1)];
“step 1.2: representing the wind stress coefficient using three dimensionless parameters, that is, a fetch Froude number, a fetch Reynolds number, and transforming the formula (2) into an expression in formula (3) in a dimensionless form;
PNG
media_image3.png
53
191
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein u10/(gF) is the fetch Froude number, u10F/vW is the fetch Reynolds number, d/F is the relative water depth, g is gravitational acceleration, vw is a viscosity coefficient of water, Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch” as [Wu (Pg. 9705, Unification of Correlation Equation and Empirical Formula, “It was reported earlier by Garratt [1977] that at 'light winds' the wind-stress coefficient varies with the wind velocity in the form of (1) and at 'strong winds' in the form of (3). As shown in Figure 1, the correlation curve, equation (3), is indistinguishable from the straight line, equation (1), except at very low and very high wind velocities. For most wind velocities, the deviation between the correlation equation and the empirical formula is only about 1%; in other words, these two expressions, (1) and (3), are practically unified.”, Fig. 1)];
“in step 1, for a logarithmic function, when a base is greater than 1, using a natural logarithm Ln() as a fitting function, and considering nonlinear impacts of the average wind speed, the fetch on the wind stress coefficient, constructing the form of the wind stress coefficient expression as a form expressed by formula (4)
PNG
media_image4.png
56
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein ai to a5 are undetermined coefficients, u10/(gF) is the fetch Froude number, u10F/vW is the fetch Reynolds number, d/F is the relative water depth, g is gravitational acceleration, vw is a viscosity coefficient of water, Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch” as [Wu (Pg. 9704, sec. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Combining (2) and the logarithmic wind-velocity distribution, etc.”, Wu (Pg. 9705, Unification of Correlation Equation and Empirical Formula, “It was reported earlier by Garratt [1977] that at 'light winds' the wind-stress coefficient varies with the wind velocity in the form of (1) and at 'strong winds' in the form of (3). As shown in Figure 1, the correlation curve, equation (3), is indistinguishable from the straight line, equation (1), except at very low and very high wind velocities. For most wind velocities, the deviation between the correlation equation and the empirical formula is only about 1%; in other words, these two expressions, (1) and (3), are practically unified”, Eqn. 3)];
“step 2: determining a concrete form of the wind stress coefficient expression” as [Wu (Pg. 9704, sec. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Combining (2) and the logarithmic wind-velocity distribution, etc.”, Eqn. 3)];
“Step 3: verifying superiority of the wind stress coefficient expression” as [Wu (Pg. 9705, Unification of Correlation Equation and Empirical Formula, “It was reported earlier by Garratt [1977] that at 'light winds' the wind-stress coefficient varies with the wind velocity in the form of (1) and at 'strong winds' in the form of (3). As shown in Figure 1, the correlation curve, equation (3), is indistinguishable from the straight line, equation (1), except at very low and very high wind velocities. For most wind velocities, the deviation between the correlation equation and the empirical formula is only about 1%; in other words, these two expressions, (1) and (3), are practically unified.”, Fig. 1)];
“selecting a verification object, using a numerical simulation method to establish a three-dimensional numerical model of a wind-driven current of the verification object by using a conventional wind stress coefficient expression of the formula (1) and the formula (5) respectively; and comparing a simulated water level of the three-dimensional numerical model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (1) and a simulated water level of the three-dimensional numerical model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (5) with a measured water level to verify superiority of the formula (5);
PNG
media_image6.png
29
170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, and both a1 and a2 are coefficients greater than 0” as [Wu (Pg. 9704, sec. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Combining (2) and the logarithmic wind-velocity distribution, etc.”, Wu (Pg. 9705, Unification of Correlation Equation and Empirical Formula, “It was reported earlier by Garratt [1977] that at 'light winds' the wind-stress coefficient varies with the wind velocity in the form of (1) and at 'strong winds' in the form of (3). As shown in Figure 1, the correlation curve, equation (3), is indistinguishable from the straight line, equation (1), except at very low and very high wind velocities. For most wind velocities, the deviation between the correlation equation and the empirical formula is only about 1%; in other words, these two expressions, (1) and (3), are practically unified.”, Eqn. 3)];
While Wu teaches constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression and representing the wind stress coefficient using three dimensionless parameters, that is, a fetch Froude number, a fetch Reynolds number, Wu does not explicitly disclose “a relative water depth”
Guo-Qing et al. discloses “representing the wind stress coefficient using a dimensionless parameter a relative water depth” as [Guo-Qing et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 1.1 Control equations, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “The paper uses a modified Ekman model, etc.”, Guo-Qing et al. (Pg. 8, last paragraph “The time series comparison of flow velocity u and v before and after filtering is shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 10a and Fig. 10b, corresponding to the water depth of 23.69m, and, etc.”, Equations 2 and 3)];
Wu and Guo-Qing et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing wind stress over a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wu of constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression and representing the wind stress coefficient using three dimensionless parameters, that is, a fetch Froude number, a fetch Reynolds number by incorporating representing the wind stress coefficient using a dimensionless parameter a relative water depth as taught by Guo-Qing et al. for the purpose of inverting time-varying wind drag coefficients (WDCs) in an Ekman model.
Wu in view of Guo-Qing et al. teaches representing the wind stress coefficient using a dimensionless parameter a relative water depth.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Guo-Qing et al. teaches that by inverting time-varying wind drag coefficients (WDCs) in an Ekman model, the ability to prove that the adjoint assimilation method could derive reasonable time-varying WDCs from measured data can be accomplished. This is useful to determine wind drag coefficients for ocean models (Guo-Qing et al. (Abstract)).
While the combination of Wu and Guo-Qing et al. teaches constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression, Wu and Guo-Qing et al. do not explicitly disclose “A computer method for numerical simulation of wind-wave-current in a water using a wind stress coefficient expression based on impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth; step 1.1: considering impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth, and constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth; selecting three types of data: wind tunnel test data, measured data of a water with a limited water depth and fetch and measured data of a water with deep water and a large fetch, and constructing a data set for fitting; and performing nonlinear regression analysis on a relationship between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F based on the constructed data set to obtain a fitting expression shown in formula (5), wherein a correlation coefficient is 0.78, a determination coefficient is 0.62, and a fitting root mean square error is 0.27;
PNG
media_image5.png
81
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; and step 4: applying the formula (5) to the numerical simulation method to form a three-dimensional data model of a wind-driven current for data simulation of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.”
Fan et al. discloses “A computer method for numerical simulation of wind-wave-current in a water using a wind stress coefficient expression based on impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1020, right col., last paragraph, “The goal of this paper is to investigate the effects of wind–wave–current interaction on the ocean response
to TCs using a coupled wind–wave–ocean model that includes explicit calculations of the wave boundary layer and the near-surface momentum flux budget. In particular, we seek to determine the effect of wind–wave–ocean coupling on the momentum fluxes into the ocean and wave models and the resulting ocean current and wave simulations. The outline of this paper is as
follows. The wind–wave–ocean model and methodology of flux calculation are described in section 2. The experimental design is presented in section 3, and the results are discussed in section 4. Finally, a summary and conclusions are presented in section 5.”, Fan et al. Pg. 1021, sec b. Ocean model, “In this study, the horizontal model domain of POM is set to be 30° latitude by 18° longitude with a grid increment of 1/128 in both directions. The Coriolis parameter is set to be a constant and equal to 3.76 x 10-5. The water depth is set to 2000 m for the whole model domain with 38 levels in the vertical.”)];
“step 1.1: considering impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth, and constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1029, sec. e Full wind–wave–current coupling, 2nd paragraph, “Upwelling due to the Ekman divergence caused by the cyclonic winds (positive wind stress curl) and oscillations of the isotherms at a nearinertial period (the inertial period is 28.8 h for this study) are evident following the storm passage. Figure 13c shows the difference between the temperatures in experiment D and the control experiment. The warmer (colder) temperature anomalies in the thermocline indicate that the upwelling (downwelling) rates are less in experiment D compared to the control experiment. This clearly implies that the wind–wave–current interaction processes at the air–sea interface affect not only the upper mixed layer but also the thermocline below”, Fan et al. Pg. 1031, left col., 1st full paragraph, “In the control experiment, the wave and ocean models were forced by the wind stress calculated in the wave boundary layer model. In experiment A, the effect of the air–sea momentum flux budget on the momentum flux into the subsurface currents was included. In experiments B and C, different feedback mechanisms of the ocean current on the wind stress and the wave field were analyzed. In experiment D, the effect of full wind–wave–current coupling was investigated.”)];
“selecting three types of data: wind tunnel test data, measured data of a water with a limited water depth and fetch and measured data of a water with deep water and a large fetch, and constructing a data set for fitting” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1029, sec. e Full wind–wave–current coupling, 1st paragraph, “In experiment D we apply the fully coupled wind–wave–ocean model (see the diagram in Fig. 1) including the air–sea flux budget calculation. The ratio between jtcj in this experiment and jtairj in the control experiment is presented in Fig. 6d., etc.”)];
“and performing nonlinear regression analysis on a relationship between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F based on the constructed data set to obtain a fitting expression shown in formula (5), wherein a correlation coefficient is 0.78, a determination coefficient is 0.62, and a fitting root mean square error is 0.27;
PNG
media_image5.png
81
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1029, sec. e Full wind–wave–current coupling, 1st paragraph, “In experiment D we apply the fully coupled wind–wave–ocean model (see the diagram in Fig. 1) including the air–sea flux budget calculation. The ratio between jtcj in this experiment and jtairj in the control experiment is presented in Fig. 6d., etc.”)];
“and step 4: applying the formula (5) to the numerical simulation method to form a three-dimensional data model of a wind-driven current for data simulation of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1021, sec b. Ocean model “The ocean response is calculated using the Princeton Ocean Model (POM). In brief, POM is a three-dimensional model structured on the primitive hydrodynamic equations with complete thermohaline dynamics (Blumberg and Mellor 1987). This model is fully nonlinear and incorporates the Mellor and Yamada level-2.5 turbulence closure scheme (MY scheme)
(Mellor and Yamada 1982).”)];
Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing wind stress over a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wu and Guo-Qing et al. of constructing a form of a wind stress coefficient expression by incorporating A computer method for numerical simulation of wind-wave-current in a water using a wind stress coefficient expression based on impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth; step 1.1: considering impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth, and constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth; selecting three types of data: wind tunnel test data, measured data of a water with a limited water depth and fetch and measured data of a water with deep water and a large fetch, and constructing a data set for fitting; and performing nonlinear regression analysis on a relationship between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F based on the constructed data set to obtain a fitting expression shown in formula (5), wherein a correlation coefficient is 0.78, a determination coefficient is 0.62, and a fitting root mean square error is 0.27;
PNG
media_image5.png
81
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; and step 4: applying the formula (5) to the numerical simulation method to form a three-dimensional data model of a wind-driven current for data simulation of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters as taught by Fan et al. for the purpose of investigating the wind–wave–current interaction mechanisms in tropical cyclones and their effect on the surface wave and ocean responses.
Wu in view of Guo-Qing et al. in view of Fan et al. teaches A computer method for numerical simulation of wind-wave-current in a water using a wind stress coefficient expression based on impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth; step 1.1: considering impacts of a wind speed, a fetch and a water depth, and constructing the wind stress coefficient expression as expressed by formula (2):
PNG
media_image1.png
18
137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Cd denotes a wind stress coefficient, u10 denotes a wind speed at a height of 10m above a water surface, F denotes the fetch, and d denotes the water depth; selecting three types of data: wind tunnel test data, measured data of a water with a limited water depth and fetch and measured data of a water with deep water and a large fetch, and constructing a data set for fitting; and performing nonlinear regression analysis on a relationship between Cd and u10/(gF), u10F/vW and d/F based on the constructed data set to obtain a fitting expression shown in formula (5), wherein a correlation coefficient is 0.78, a determination coefficient is 0.62, and a fitting root mean square error is 0.27;
PNG
media_image5.png
81
531
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; and step 4: applying the formula (5) to the numerical simulation method to form a three-dimensional data model of a wind-driven current for data simulation of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Fan et al. teaches that by investigating the wind–wave–current interaction mechanisms in tropical cyclones and their effect on the surface wave and ocean responses, the ability to determine the momentum flux in the current can be accomplished. This allows a way to know the timing of the current based on the wind velocity (Fan et al. Pg. 1029, sec. 5 Summary and conclusions, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “In this paper, we have investigated the wind–wave–current interaction processes, etc.”).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. discloses the method of claim 11 above, and Fan et al. further discloses “wherein the three-dimensional data model of the wind-driven current established by the formula (5) is used to simulate water levels of lakes, wetland waters or ocean waters.” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1021, sec b. Ocean model “The ocean response is calculated using the Princeton Ocean Model (POM). In brief, POM is a three-dimensional model structured on the primitive hydrodynamic equations with complete thermohaline dynamics (Blumberg and Mellor 1987). This model is fully nonlinear and incorporates the Mellor and Yamada level-2.5 turbulence closure scheme (MY scheme) (Mellor and Yamada 1982).”)];
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wu in view of Guo-Qing et al. in further view of Fan et al. in further view of Huang et al. (CN 108573356) (translation).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. discloses the method of claim 11 above, and Fan et al. further discloses “wherein in step 1.1, a water body forms wind-induced waves and surface currents under the action of wind” as [Fan et al. (Pg. 1029, sec. e Full wind–wave–current coupling, 1st paragraph, “In experiment D we apply the fully coupled wind–wave–ocean model (see the diagram in Fig. 1) including the air–sea flux budget calculation. The ratio between jtcj in this experiment and jtairj in the control experiment is presented in Fig. 6d., etc.”)];
Wu discloses “and thus a Froude number is used to represent a strength of interaction between the turbulent terms in airflow and waves” as [Wu (Pg. 9704, sec. 2, right col., 1st paragraph, “Combining (2) and the logarithmic wind-velocity distribution, etc.”, Eqn. 3)];
While the combination of Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. teaches reflecting a wind-wave-current interaction strength by a wind stress coefficient, Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. do not explicitly disclose “and a total wind stress in a water-air boundary layer is composed of a turbulent shear stress and a viscous shear stress, wherein the turbulent shear stress is related to disturbance of waves to airflow, and the viscous shear stress is related to the surface currents; the turbulent shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between turbulent terms in airflow and gravity waves, wherein the turbulent shear stress is an inertial force driving wave motion, wave gravity is a restoring force; and the viscous shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between viscous terms in airflow and the surface currents, wherein the viscous shear stress is a driving force, a viscous force generated after water surface slip is a restoring force, and thus a Reynolds number is used to represent the strength of the interaction between the viscous terms and the surface currents.”
Huang et al. discloses “and a total wind stress in a water-air boundary layer is composed of a turbulent shear stress and a viscous shear stress, wherein the turbulent shear stress is related to disturbance of waves to airflow, and the viscous shear stress is related to the surface currents; the turbulent shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between turbulent terms in airflow and gravity waves, wherein the turbulent shear stress is an inertial force driving wave motion, wave gravity is a restoring force” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 4, number 2 “the measured Reynolds stress distribution extended to obtain the surface shear stress of the bed, then obtaining the frictional flow rate. the shear stress water flow includes a viscous shear stress and turbulence shear stress. viscous shear stress mainly acts on the near-wall flow region to flow away from wall, the turbulent shear stress (i.e., Reynolds stress ) occupies the main part. method b using water flow channel of the shear stress is characteristic of a linear distribution along the depth by measuring the distribution of the Reynolds stress calculated frictional flow rate.”)];
“and the viscous shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between viscous terms in airflow and the surface currents, wherein the viscous shear stress is a driving force, a viscous force generated after water surface slip is a restoring force, and thus a Reynolds number is used to represent the strength of the interaction between the viscous terms and the surface currents.” as [Huang et al. (Pg. 4, number 2 “the measured Reynolds stress distribution extended to obtain the surface shear stress of the bed, then obtaining the frictional flow rate. The shear stress water flow includes a viscous shear stress and turbulence shear stress. Viscous shear stress mainly acts on the near-wall flow region to flow away from wall, the turbulent shear stress (i.e., Reynolds stress) occupies the main part. Method b using water flow channel of the shear stress is characteristic of a linear distribution along the depth by measuring the distribution of the Reynolds stress calculated frictional flow rate.”)];
Wu, Guo-Qing et al., Fan et al. and Huang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing wind stress over a body of water.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wu, Guo-Qing et al. and Fan et al. of reflecting a wind-wave-current interaction strength by a wind stress coefficient by incorporating and a total wind stress in a water-air boundary layer is composed of a turbulent shear stress and a viscous shear stress, wherein the turbulent shear stress is related to disturbance of waves to airflow, and the viscous shear stress is related to the surface currents; the turbulent shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between turbulent terms in airflow and gravity waves, wherein the turbulent shear stress is an inertial force driving wave motion, wave gravity is a restoring force; and the viscous shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between viscous terms in airflow and the surface currents, wherein the viscous shear stress is a driving force, a viscous force generated after water surface slip is a restoring force, and thus a Reynolds number is used to represent the strength of the interaction between the viscous terms and the surface currents as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of analyzing offshore construction.
Wu in view of Guo-Qing et al. in view of Fan et al. in further view of Huang et al. teaches and a total wind stress in a water-air boundary layer is composed of a turbulent shear stress and a viscous shear stress, wherein the turbulent shear stress is related to disturbance of waves to airflow, and the viscous shear stress is related to the surface currents; the turbulent shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between turbulent terms in airflow and gravity waves, wherein the turbulent shear stress is an inertial force driving wave motion, wave gravity is a restoring force; and the viscous shear stress reflects a strength of interaction between viscous terms in airflow and the surface currents, wherein the viscous shear stress is a driving force, a viscous force generated after water surface slip is a restoring force, and thus a Reynolds number is used to represent the strength of the interaction between the viscous terms and the surface currents.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Huang et al. teaches that by analyzing offshore construction, the ability to analyzing the wave flow of a body of water can be accomplished (Huang et al. (Abstract)).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Wu, Guo-Qing et al., Fan et al. and Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 13 above, and Wu further discloses “wherein, in step 1.2, considering a case of a unit width water body, for any fetch F, the fetch Froude number u10/(gF) is used to represent the strength of interaction between the turbulent shear stress of airflow and waves in a range of the fetch F; the fetch Reynolds number u10F/vW is used to represent the strength of interaction between the viscous shear stress of airflow and the surface currents in the range of the fetch” as [Wu (Pg. 9705, Unification of Correlation Equation and Empirical Formula, “It was reported earlier by Garratt [1977] that at 'light winds' the wind-stress coefficient varies with the wind velocity in the form of (1) and at 'strong winds' in the form of (3). As shown in Figure 1, the correlation curve, equation (3), is indistinguishable from the straight line, equation (1), except at very low and very high wind velocities. For most wind velocities, the deviation between the correlation equation and the empirical formula is only about 1%; in other words, these two expressions, (1) and (3), are practically unified.”, Fig. 1)];
Guo-Qing et al. discloses “and the relative water depth d/F is constructed as a water depth characteristic of the water body.” as [Guo-Qing et al. (Pg. 2, sec. 1.1 Control equations, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “The paper uses a modified Ekman model, etc.”, Guo-Qing et al. (Pg. 8, last paragraph “The time series comparison of flow velocity u and v before and after filtering is shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 10a and Fig. 10b, corresponding to the water depth of 23.69m, and, etc.”, Equations 2 and 3)];
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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188