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, see pgs. 15-21, filed 16 July 2025, with respect to the claim objections and rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 15, regarding the claim objections presented in the previous office action, that:
“For the informality of claim 1, Applicant has removed “Equation 1” to claim 1 to overcome the objections. for the informality of claim 2, the applicant has amended “pavemen” in claim 2 to be “pavement” to overcome the objection. For two equations of claim 3, the two equations are not the same.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the claim objections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pgs. 15-16, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claims 1-9 have been amended to address these issues noted in the Office Action.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments mostly persuasive and mostly agrees. Two issues are now present. 1) the limitation “proposed by Masson” has not be addressed. 2) Applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 8, and has thus created new 112(b) uncertainty issues regarding “a/the street canyon.”
Applicant argues on pgs. 16-18, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Applicant submits that the claims do not “recite” a judicial exception because they do not merely recite a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. Furthermore, the claim are not “directed to” a judicial exception under the Section 101 PTO Guidelines because they integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of linking adjacent regions together, simulating a urban canopy effect and optimizing the urban canopy model and improve its predictive accuracy for urban heat island effects in tropical island climates.
As recited in independent claim 1,the processor is configured for linking adjacent regions together, defining an energy balance equation, simulating a urban canopy effect and optimizing the urban canopy model, thereby improving its predictive accuracy for urban heat island effects in tropical island climates. The processor is an additional element, and simulating a urban canopy effect and optimizing the urban canopy model is a step that cannot be performed in the mind. further, the guidelines note that mental processes are observations, evaluations, judgement and opinion, none of which cover optimizing the urban canopy model, as recited in Applicant’s amended independent claim 1.
As recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1, the processor is configured for linking adjacent regions together, simulating a urban canopy effect and optimizing the urban canopy model, which is applied in improving its predictive accuracy for urban heat island effects in tropical island climates. Accordingly, the abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application, as recited in Applicant’s amended independent claim 1.
Further, Prong 2 of Step 2B requires evaluating whether additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Taking all the additional claim elements individually, and in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claimed invention is directed to the improvement in optimizing urban planning and reducing the urban heat island effect.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments not persuasive and disagrees. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
Furthermore, nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
The applicant has argued an improvement, wherein the improvement is directed to the use of a processor in optimizing the urban canopy model and improving its predictive accuracy for urban heat island effects in tropical island climates. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Although the applicant has not submitted any particular paragraphs for arguments towards an improvement, the applicant’s disclosure has been searched for the improvement description. First, the words improvement are disclosed in paras. [0080] and [0174]-[0175]. Para. [0080] is construed as a bare assertion without details necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill, and not directed towards a processor as providing the improvement. Para. [0174] discloses an improvement on the adaptability, which is also construed as a bare assertion without details necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill, and not directed towards a processor as providing the improvement. Paras. [0175] discloses that the new model is built based on the finite length of a street canopy, which improves the calculation accuracy of the horizontal heat flux in the street canyon, which is also construed as a bare assertion without details necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill, and not directed towards a processor as providing the improvement. Furthermore, the applicant’s disclosure does not recite the words “processor” or “computer” in any paragraph of the specification or provide a depiction of a processor or computer in the drawings. Therefore the first criteria has not been met.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
In examining the second criteria, it is noted that the first criteria has not been met. All of paras. [0080] and [0174]-[0175] disclose a bare assertion without details necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill, and further does not show support for a processor at all. Furthermore, the explicit disclosure of solar radiation; e.g. see para. [0080], and/or adaptability; e.g., see paras. [0174]-[0175] are not present in the instant claims. Therefore the second criteria has not been met.
Applicant argues on pgs. 18-20, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) presented in the previous office action, that:
“Colombert discusses a study focused on the energy balance in urban areas, particularly how different urban characteristics affect this balance. It introduces the concept of urban canyons and their role in simulating urban heat island effects. The study emphasizes the importance of considering the geometry and orientation of urban structures in energy balance models.
Krayenhoff presents a detailed three-dimensional model for studying surface temperatures in urban environments. The model accounts for solar radiation, anthropogenic heat flux, turbulent heat fluxes, etc.
Masson (2000) outlines a physically-based scheme for modeling the urban energy budget within atmospheric models. It focuses on the interaction between different surface types (such as roofs, roads, and walls) and their impact on the overall energy balance. The scheme uses a multi-layer approach to simulate the conduction of heat through building surfaces and the ground.
The amended claim 1 clearly describes how to calculate wind speeds in street canyons, including considerations for the complexity of air flow and the impact of urban structures, which not only improves the accuracy of the simulation but also enhances simulating the heat island effect. By decomposing wind speed into vertical and horizontal components, air flow within urban canyons may be simulated more accurately, the geometric shapes and layouts of urban canyons may be better adapted. The Logarithmic approximation curve may capture the characteristics of how wind speed varies with height, which is crucial for simulating turbulence and heat flux distribution within urban canyons.
Colombert, Krayenhoff and Masson fails to describe how to dynamically calculate wind speeds within urban canyons, whereas the amended claim 1 provides a more accurate simulation by decomposing wind speed into vertical and horizontal components and using a logarithmic approximation curve.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. See MPEP 2145.IV.
Furthermore, claim 1 has been amended to include components of claim 8, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Colombert, Krayenhoff, and Masson, wherein applicant has provided the additional limitations of “simulating a urban canopy effect based on the net radiation heat flux, the sensible heat flux, the latent heat flux, the net heat storage flux, the net convective heat flux using the energy balance equation; and optimizing the urban canopy model based on the simulated urban canopy effect,” to which Colombert discloses, which is cited below. Furthermore, applicant’s representative has not argued any specific failures of Colombert, Krayenhoff, or Masson in the previous rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1, lines 2-3 disclose "wherein the method is performed by a processor and the processor is configured for." However, a processor is not disclosed in the applicant's specification, nor is it illustrated in applicant's drawings.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 3, line 11 discloses “a street canyon.” It is unclear if “a street canyon” is the same “a street canyon” of Claim 1, line 18. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 4, line 3 discloses “a street canyon.” It is unclear if “a street canyon” is the same “a street canyon” of Claim 1, line 18. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 5, line 7 discloses “a street canyon.” It is unclear if “a street canyon” is the same “a street canyon” of Claim 1, line 18. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 5, lines 27 discloses “in a Town Energy Balance (TEB) model proposed by Masson.” A model disclosed by a particular individual does not limit or define the technical scope of the claim, and therefore produces ambiguity.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 6, line 10 discloses “a street canyon.” It is unclear if “a street canyon” is the same “a street canyon” of Claim 1, line 18. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 9, line 4 discloses “a street canyon.” It is unclear if “a street canyon” is the same “a street canyon” of Claim 1, line 18. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 and 9 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A method for building an urban canopy model based on tropical island climate characteristics,
linking adjacent regions together, wherein each region comprises multiple streets of finite lengths affecting each other;
wherein an energy balance equation for each street within the linked adjacent regions, and the energy balance equation is as follows:
Q
*
s
+
Q
F
,
s
=
Q
H
,
s
+
Q
E
,
s
+
∆
Q
S
,
s
+
∆
Q
A
,
s
wherein
Q
*
is a net radiation heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
,
Q
F
is an anthropogenic heat production, in unit of watts per square meter (
W
/
m
2
)
;
Q
H
is a sensible heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
Q
E
is a latent heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
S
is a net heat storage flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
A
is a net convective heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
s
is in the street;
wherein the net radiation heat flux
Q
*
= a long-wave radiation + a short-wave radiation;
optimizing the urban canopy model based on the simulated urban canopy effect,
wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street;
according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
;
the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect;
the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model;
the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon;
in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed;
according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies;
according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon,
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows. has a scope that encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses A method for building an urban canopy model based on tropical island climate characteristics, linking adjacent regions together, wherein each region comprises multiple streets of finite lengths affecting each other; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein an energy balance equation for each street within the linked adjacent regions, and the energy balance equation is as follows:
Q
*
s
+
Q
F
,
s
=
Q
H
,
s
+
Q
E
,
s
+
∆
Q
S
,
s
+
∆
Q
A
,
s
wherein
Q
*
is a net radiation heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
,
Q
F
is an anthropogenic heat production, in unit of watts per square meter (
W
/
m
2
)
;
Q
H
is a sensible heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
Q
E
is a latent heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
S
is a net heat storage flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
A
is a net convective heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
s
is in the street; wherein the net radiation heat flux
Q
*
= a long-wave radiation + a short-wave radiation; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; optimizing the urban canopy model based on the simulated urban canopy effect, wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept and/or a mental step; e.g., mathematical relationships and/or performable with pen and paper; according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation; the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon; in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed; according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation;
according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation;
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows; construed by the examiner as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation.. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
wherein the method is performed by a processor and the processor is configured for:
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
simulating a urban canopy effect based on the net radiation heat flux, the sensible heat flux, the latent heat flux, the net heat storage flux, the net convective heat flux using the energy balance equation; and
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombert et al. (Colombert, M., Diab, Y., Salagnac, J., & Morand, D. (2011, May 17). Sensitivity study of the energy balance to urban characteristics. Sustainable Cities and Society. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670711000163?via%3Dihub), hereinafter Colombert, in view of Krayenhoff et al. (Krayenhoff, E.S., Voogt, J.A. A microscale three-dimensional urban energy balance model for studying surface temperatures. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 123, 433–461 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-006-9153-6), hereinafter Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson (Masson, Valéry. (2000). A Physically-Based Scheme For The Urban Energy Budget In Atmospheric Models. Boundary-Layer Meteorology. 94. 357-397. 10.1023/A:1002463829265. ), hereinafter Masson.
Regarding claim 1, Colombert discloses: A method for building an urban canopy model based on tropical island climate characteristics, wherein the method is performed by a processor and the processor is configured for: (Colombert, e.g., see pg. 128, col. 1, section 2.5 disclosing with measured data, computing resources are reduced and we could do simulations with a desktop computer; examiner notes a desktop computer necessarily comprises the use of a processor).
linking adjacent regions together, wherein each region comprises multiple streets of finite lengths affecting each other; (Colombert, e.g., see pg. 126, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing to study UHI (urban heat island), a common urban structural form has been defined: the urban canyon. Urban canyons are symmetrical canyons characterized by their length, building height (H), street width (W) and orientation. Oke (1981) reported a correlation between
∆
T
U
-
R
and
H
/
W
ratio during calm clear-sky conditions. This urban structural form is also used to describe high-density urban zones such as Paris, France; examiner notes that defining a common urban structural form describing high-density urban zones of Paris, France is construed as linking adjacent regions together; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban heat island of a plurality of regions of buildings and intersecting roads; construed by the examiner of multiple streets, necessarily comprising finite lengths, wherein the regions of buildings are necessarily affecting each other, which is further disclosed on pg. 126, col. 1, para. [0005] – col. 2, para. [0001] disclosing The TEB (Town Energy Balance) scheme is one of the most complete parameterization of urban effects. Except the Martilli’s scheme, no other urban parameterization explicitly considers the effects of buildings, roads, and other artificial materials on the urban surface energy budget; see also pg. 128, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing TEB simulates the urban energy balance by combining individual energy budgets for walls, roads, and roofs. It uses surface and substrate radiative, thermal, and roughness properties as well as canyon geometry to simulate the effects produced by the presence of buildings. TEB uses the same type of roof, wall and road description for the whole urban area. The buildings have the same height and are located along identical roads. Any road orientation is possible and all exist with the same probability).
wherein an energy balance equation for each street within the linked adjacent regions, and the energy balance equation is as follows:
Q
*
s
+
Q
F
,
s
=
Q
H
,
s
+
Q
E
,
s
+
∆
Q
S
,
s
+
∆
Q
A
,
s
wherein
Q
*
is a net radiation heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
,
Q
F
is an anthropogenic heat production, in unit of watts per square meter (
W
/
m
2
)
;
Q
H
is a sensible heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
Q
E
is a latent heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
S
is a net heat storage flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
∆
Q
A
is a net advective heat flux, in unit of
W
/
m
2
;
s
is in the street; wherein the net radiation heat flux
Q
*
= a long-wave radiation + a short-wave radiation; (Colombert, e.g., see fig. 1(b) illustrating an urban heat island along with an equation disclosing
Q
*
+
Q
F
=
Q
H
+
Q
E
+
∆
Q
S
+
∆
Q
A
with the description The (a) surface radiation and (b) energy balance for an urban area. (a)
K
↓
: incoming short-wave radiation;
L
↓
: incoming long-wave radiation from the atmosphere;
L
↑
: outgoing long-wave radiation exiting from a surface;
α
K
↓
: reflected short-wave radiation (
α
is surface albedo). (b)
Q
*
: net all-wave radiation at the top;
Q
F
: anthropogenic heat flux;
Q
H
and
Q
E
: respectively turbulent heat fluxes for sensible and latent heat;
Δ
Q
S
: sensible heat storage by the elements;
Δ
Q
A
: net local advection (the heat advection through the sides of the control volume); see also pg. 132, Appendix A. List of Symbols disclosing
Q
*
- net all-wave radiation at the top
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
,
Q
F
– anthropogenic heat flux
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
,
Q
H
– turbulent heat fluxes for sensible heat
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
,
Q
E
– turbulent heat fluxes for latent heat
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
,
∆
Q
S
– sensible heat storage by the elements
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
,
∆
Q
A
– net local heat advection
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
; see also rejection as applied above, specifically to see also pg. 128, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing TEB simulates the urban energy balance by combining individual energy budgets for walls, roads, and roofs; construed by the examiner as the equation being presented towards the street, wherein s is for the streets; see also fig. 1(a) illustrating incoming and outgoing radiation in the form of L and K, specifically disclosing
Q
*
=
L
↓
-
L
↑
+
(
1
-
α
)
K
↓
, wherein examiner notes that
Q
*
,
L
↓
, and
K
↓
are disclosed as the net all-wave radiation, incoming long-wave radiation, and incoming short-wave radiation, respectively).
simulating a urban canopy effect based on the net radiation heat flux, the sensible heat flux, the latent heat flux, the net heat storage flux, the net advective heat flux using the energy balance equation; and (Colombert; e.g., see rejection as applied above citing net radiation heat flux, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, net heat storage flux, net advective heat flux utilizing the energy balance equation; see also pg. 128, section 2.5 disclosing for our simulations, TEB was not coupled to a mesoscale atmospheric model but forced with measured data. This modus operandi has some advantages but also some inconveniences. With measured data, computing resources are reduced and we could do simulations with a desktop computer; see also figs. 5-6 illustrating simulation results; see also pg. 130, col. 2 disclosing fig. 5 and 6 are examples of our simulation results. Fig. 5 presents the result of the simulation of surface energy balance during the 30th January 2006 in Paris. Fig. 6 presents a comparison of daily average energy balance for Paris, Minergie buildings and Minergie-P Buildings, during the 30th January 2006).
optimizing the urban canopy model based on the simulated urban canopy effect, (Colombert, e.g., see pg. 129, col. 2, section 3.2 disclosing the TEB scheme was used so as to carry out a parametric sensitivity analysis. Selected factors are known to be major drivers of the UHI [urban heat island]: radiative and thermal behaviours of buildings as well as of urban surfaces, urban geometry. Table 2 presents these factors and the values used to study their influence on urban energy balance. Parameters have been changed one by one except for “RT 2005 buildings’, ‘Minergie or Minergie-P buildings’ and ‘Light Colour buildings’ simulations. For ‘RT 2005 buildings’ and ‘Minergie or Minergie-P buildings’ simulations, we have changed thermal resistance of roofs and walls (in RT 2005 buildings:
R
t
h
w
a
l
l
=
1.90
K
m
2
W
-
1
and
R
t
h
r
o
o
f
=
5.05
K
m
2
W
-
1
; in Minergie-P buildings:
R
t
h
w
a
l
l
=
3.15
K
m
2
W
-
1
and
R
t
h
r
o
o
f
=
8.41
K
m
2
W
-
1
). For ‘Light colour buildings’ simulations, we have simultaneously changed albedo of roofs and walls (0.75 and 0.85). We have also simulated the surface energy balance with very light colour Minergie-P buildings; examiner notes that Colombert is describing an optimization of the urban canopy model; see pg. 130, col. 2 – pg. 131, col. 2 disclosing to compare parametric study results, we rank for each season (winter and summer) the influence of factors into four categories: very low, low, strong and very strong. To choose the category, we look at the average values of each term of the energetic balance presented in Section 2.1 and compare for one parameter the results of the different simulations. Needless to say, our results and our ranking depend on our choice of the values used for the parametric study. For example, minimum and maximum values of thermal resistance are not the same for roofs and walls. We have to take into account this and to be careful with our analysis. We can also not that our simulations have suggested that
Q
H
is the most sensitive term of the energy balance. Table 3 presents our results. We can note that the urban parameters that have the strongest influence on urban energy balance are not the same in winter and in summer; examiner notes that optimizations are made based on the simulated urban canopy effect).
Colombert is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a net convective heat flux, and
wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street; according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
; the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect; the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model; the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon; in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed; according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies; according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon,
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows.
However, Krayenhoff further discloses: a net convective heat flux. (Krayenhoff, e.g., see pg. 434, List of Symbols disclosing
Q
h
- convective sensible heat flux density, wherein also disclosed is H – convective sensible heat flux density (patch)
(
W
∙
m
-
2
)
).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert with Krayenhoff’s net convective heat flux for at least the reasons that it is known that thermal energy of the flow must be modelled, both to determine stability effects on vertical turbulent transport, and to estimate the surface-air thermal gradient that controls convective heat transfer, wherein an empirically based approach to convection is taken in the initial version of the model and the quality of the surface temperature results is investigated, as taught by Krayenhoff; e.g., see pg. 441, para. [0002].
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street; according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
; the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect; the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model; the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon; in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed; according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies; according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon,
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows.
However, Masson further discloses: wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street; according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
; (Masson, e.g., see pgs. 373-375, section 2.9.5. Wind Inside the Canyon disclosing the computation of the wind inside the canyon is necessary to estimate the heat fluxes between the surfaces and the canyon. The vertical wind speed along the walls,
W
c
a
n
, as well as the horizontal wind speed in the canyon,
U
c
a
n
, must be defined; examiner notes that a horizontal velocity along the width of the street is necessarily ignored. Rotach (1995) observed that the standard deviation of the vertical wind speed,
σ
w
, in the upper part of the canyon, is almost equal to the friction velocity,
u
*
, whatever the stability or wind direction above).
the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect; (Masson, e.g., see pgs. 373-374 disclosing Feigenwinter et al. (1999) finds that
σ
w
/
u
*
is, on the contrary, increasing with height for unstable conditions. However, their value of
σ
w
/
u
*
near the roof level (extrapolated using a Monin-Obukhov function) was approximately 1.15, which is of the same order of magnitude as the Rotach (1995) results. They also found that for stable to weakly unstable conditions,
u
*
presents a maximum between the roughness sublayer and the inertial sublayer above. However,
u
*
does not depart by more than 10% from its value in the inertial sublayer, and is assumed constant with height in the scheme. Then, assuming that all this holds true for other canyon aspect ratios, the vertical wind speed along the walls reads:
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
, where
U
a
is the wind velocity at the first atmospheric model level. The drag coefficient,
C
d
, is computed from the temperatures and humidities in and above the canyon, and from the roughness length,
z
0
t
o
w
n
, taking into account the stability effects according to Mascart et al. (1995)).
the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model; the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon; (Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also pg. 374, lines 7-20 disclosing where
U
a
is the wind velocity at the first atmospheric model level. The drag coefficient,
C
d
is computed from the temperatures and humidities in and above the canyon, and from the roughness length,
z
0
t
o
w
n
, taking into account the stability effects according to Mascart et al. (1995). The horizontal wind speed,
U
c
a
n
is estimated at half the height of the canyon. first, the horizontal wind speed at the top of the canyon is deduced from the logarithmic law above it (Figure 3, right side), and the displacement height is equal to two thirds of the building height from the road surface (i.e., at h/3 under the roof level, which is the zero height of the atmospheric model, a classical assumption for plant canopies). Furthermore, in order to consider all canyon orientations, and since only the along canyon wind is considered, an integration over 360˚ is performed. At the canyon top, this gives
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
t
o
w
n
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
t
o
w
n
U
a
, where
∆
z
is the height of the first atmospheric model level above the roofs).
in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed; according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies; (Masson, e.g., see pg. 374, lines 21-25 disclosing to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a vertical profile of the wind inside the canyon is assumed. An exponential form is chosen, as is done in vegetation canopies, e.g., Arya (1988). Such a profile applied at half-height gives:
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
, where N must be determined).
according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 374, lines 25-29 disclosing Rotach (1995) finds from his case study (h/w=1), that
U
c
a
n
≈
0.75
U
t
o
p
. Studies in corn fields (h/w ~ 4), which could be assimilated to narrow streets, give
U
c
a
n
≈
0.4
U
t
o
p
(Arya, 1988). Therefore, the parameter
N
=
0.5
h
/
w
should be appropriate. Then
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
1
4
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
t
o
w
n
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
t
o
w
n
U
a
)
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon,
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows. (Masson, e.g., see pg. 374, section 2.9.6. Sensible and Latent Heat Fluxes in the Canyon – pg. 375 disclosing above the canyon, the fluxes are estimated from classical surface boundary-layer laws. However, in these formulae, the air characteristics in the canyon (
T
c
a
n
and
q
c
a
n
) are used instead of the surface characteristics. The aerodynamic resistance above the canyon, called
R
E
S
t
o
p
is calculated with
z
0
t
o
w
n
using the stability coefficients of Mascart et al. (1995) (this formulation leads to different drag coefficients for momentum fluxes and for heat or moisture fluxes). The heat and moisture turbulent fluxes between canyon and atmosphere then read
H
t
o
p
=
C
P
d
ρ
a
T
^
a
-
T
c
a
n
R
E
S
t
o
p
,
L
E
t
o
p
=
L
v
ρ
a
q
^
a
-
q
c
a
n
R
E
S
t
o
p
. Between the canyon surfaces (road and walls) and the canyon air, the Rowley et a. (1930) and Rowley and Eckley (1932) aerodynamic formulations are used. They were obtained from in-situ measurements; these formulae are also used in the canyon circulation model of Mills (1993). Other formulations of similar form exist in the literature (see e.g., Sturrock and Cole, 1977, either from wind-tunnel or in-situ measurements). For simplicity, the same value is chosen for both road and walls. The resistance is independent of the stability inside or above the canyon. It reads:
R
E
S
r
=
R
E
S
w
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
. Finally, the heat fluxes between the canyon surfaces and the canyon air read:
H
r
=
C
P
d
ρ
a
T
r
-
T
c
a
n
R
E
S
r
,
H
w
=
C
P
d
ρ
a
T
w
-
T
c
a
n
R
E
S
w
,
L
E
r
=
L
v
ρ
a
δ
r
q
s
a
t
T
r
,
p
s
-
q
c
a
n
R
E
S
r
,
L
E
w
=
0
; see also pg. 361 disclosing
H
R
,
H
r
,
H
w
– Turbulent sensible heat flux for roofs, roads and walls).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff with Masson’s wherein in a street canyon, the wind velocity is decomposed into a vertical velocity
W
c
a
n
along the wall and a horizontal velocity
U
c
a
n
along the length of the street; according to an observation, in a part close to the top of the street canyon, regardless of an air stability and a wind direction above the street canyon, a standard deviation
σ
w
of a vertical wind velocity is equal to a friction velocity
u
*
; the part
σ
w
/
u
*
close to the roof is 1.15, which is the same order of magnitude as an observed result; for an inertial boundary layer, a deviation of
u
*
is not more than 10%; therefore, for any aspect ratio of the street canyon, the vertical velocity is assumed to be
W
c
a
n
=
u
*
=
C
d
U
a
i
r
where
U
a
i
r
is a wind velocity of the first layer of an atmospheric model, and
C
d
is a drag coefficient, which is calculated from the temperature/humidity in and above the street canyon, a roughness
Z
0
, and a stability effect; the horizontal wind velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is obtained by means of a Log approximate curve, a processing range of the Log curve being from
h
/
3
of a lower part of the roof to a height of the first layer of the atmospheric model, wherein h is the height of the street canyon; when all street canyon orientations are considered, 360˚ integral processing is performed, then the velocity at the top of the street canyon
U
t
o
p
is
U
t
o
p
=
2
π
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
where
Δ
z
is a height from the roof to the first layer of the atmospheric model; the horizontal wind velocity
U
c
a
n
is determined according to the wind velocity at 1/2 height of the street canyon; in order to calculate
U
c
a
n
, a reasonable change law of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction needs to be assumed; according to a continuity assumption of the wind velocity, a change curve of
U
c
a
n
in the vertical direction as the following form
U
c
a
n
=
U
t
o
p
exp
-
N
/
2
where a value of N varies; according to an aspect ratio of the street canyon (
h
/
w
=
1
-
4
), the value of
U
c
a
n
varies from 0.75
U
t
o
p
to 0.4
U
t
o
p
;
N
=
0.5
(
h
/
w
)
, the horizontal wind velocity in the street canyon
U
c
a
n
is
U
c
a
n
=
2
π
exp
-
0.25
h
w
ln
h
/
3
z
0
ln
Δ
z
+
h
/
3
z
0
U
a
i
r
calculations of aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and the wall in the street canyon are simplified, and the two are considered to have equal aerodynamic roughness, which is unrelated to the stability inside and outside the street canyon,
R
E
S
w
=
R
E
S
r
=
11.8
+
4.2
U
c
a
n
2
+
W
c
a
n
2
-
1
where the parameters
R
E
S
w
and
R
E
S
r
represent aerodynamic roughness of the pavement and aerodynamic roughness of the wall respectively, which are inverses of
C
p
C
H
1
and
C
p
C
H
2
, and are used for calculating sensible and latent heat flows for at least the reasons that computation of the wind inside the canyon is necessary to estimate the heat fluxes between the surfaces and the canyon, as taught by Masson; e.g., see pg. 373, section 2.9.5.
Regarding claim 2, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson discloses: for the pavement, if
Ψ
r
is a sky viewing angle coefficient of the pavement to a sky, amount of solar radiation,
1
-
Ψ
r
is a sky viewing angle coefficient of the pavement to the walls on both sides; a sky viewing angle coefficient of the wall to the sky is
Ψ
w
, a sky viewing angle coefficient to the pavement is
Ψ
w
, then a sky viewing angle coefficient to the opposite wall is
1
-
2
Ψ
w
, and the sky viewing angle coefficient is 1.0 for a roof;
the sky viewing angle coefficient is calculated using a plane angle, the sky viewing angle coefficient at
w
/
2
position of the pavement is
Ψ
r
=
w
/
2
=
1
+
1
π
tan
-
1
h
/
w
h
/
w
2
-
1
/
4
for
h
/
w
≤
1
/
2
Ψ
r
=
w
/
2
=
1
-
1
π
tan
-
1
h
/
w
h
/
w
2
-
1
/
4
for
h
/
w
≥
1
/
2
the sky viewing angle coefficient at an intersection of the wall and the pavement is
Ψ
w
z
=
0
=
1
π
tan
-
1
1
h
/
w
, h represents a height of the street canyon, a w represents a width of the street canyon. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of amount of solar radiation,
1
-
Ψ
r
is a sky viewing angle coefficient of the pavement to the walls on both sides; a sky viewing angle coefficient of the wall to the sky is
Ψ
w
, a sky viewing angle coefficient to the pavement is
Ψ
w
, then a sky viewing angle coefficient to the opposite wall is
1
-
2
Ψ
w
, and the sky viewing angle coefficient is 1.0 for a roof; the sky viewing angle coefficient is calculated using a plane angle, the sky viewing angle coefficient at
w
/
2
position of the pavement is
Ψ
r
=
w
/
2
=
1
+
1
π
tan
-
1
h
/
w
h
/
w
2
-
1
/
4
for
h
/
w
≤
1
/
2
,
Ψ
r
=
w
/
2
=
1
-
1
π
tan
-
1
h
/
w
h
/
w
2
-
1
/
4
for
h
/
w
≥
1
/
2
the sky viewing angle coefficient at an intersection of the wall and the pavement is
Ψ
w
z
=
0
=
1
π
tan
-
1
1
h
/
w
, h represents a height of the street canyon, a w represents a width of the street canyon is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if
Ψ
r
is a sky viewing angle coefficient of the pavement to a sky, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a net long-wave radiation of a pavement
L
*
r
:
L
*
r
=
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
L
↓
-
ϵ
r
σ
T
4
r
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
and a net long-wave radiation of a wall
L
w
*
:
L
w
*
=
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
L
↓
-
ϵ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
2
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
r
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
where
L
↓
is an amount of solar radiation,
σ
is a standard deviation,
T
r
and
T
w
are temperatures of the pavemen and the wall, and
ϵ
r
and
ϵ
w
are emissivities of the pavement and the wall;
However, Masson further discloses: a net long-wave radiation of a pavement
L
*
r
:
L
*
r
=
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
L
↓
-
ϵ
r
σ
T
4
r
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
and a net long-wave radiation of a wall
L
w
*
:
L
w
*
=
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
L
↓
-
ϵ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
2
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
r
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
where
L
↓
is an amount of solar radiation,
σ
is a standard deviation,
T
r
and
T
w
are temperatures of the pavemen and the wall, and
ϵ
r
and
ϵ
w
are emissivities of the pavement and the wall; (Masson, e.g., see pgs. 367-368, section 2.6 Longwave Budget disclosing the net longwave radiation absorbed by the snow-free road and wall surfaces is given as:
L
*
r
=
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
L
↓
-
ϵ
r
σ
T
4
r
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
(eqn. 11),
L
w
*
=
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
L
↓
-
ϵ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
2
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
r
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
(eqn. 12); see also pg. 361 illustrating Table 2 disclosing
L
↓
- Downward infrared radiation on an horizontal surface
W
m
-
2
,
T
R
k
,
T
r
k
,
T
w
k
– Temperature of the kth roof, road or wall layer, [respectively]; see also pg. 360 illustrating Table 1, disclosing
ϵ
R
,
ϵ
r
,
ϵ
w
– Roof, road and wall emissivities, [respectively]).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Masson’s a net long-wave radiation of a pavement
L
*
r
:
L
*
r
=
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
L
↓
-
ϵ
r
σ
T
4
r
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
r
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
4
w
+
ϵ
r
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
and a net long-wave radiation of a wall
L
w
*
:
L
w
*
=
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
L
↓
-
ϵ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
r
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
L
↓
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
2
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
2
1
-
ϵ
r
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
r
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
w
σ
T
w
4
+
ϵ
w
1
-
ϵ
w
Ψ
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
σ
ϵ
r
T
r
4
where
L
↓
is an amount of solar radiation,
σ
is a standard deviation,
T
r
and
T
w
are temperatures of the pavemen and the wall, and
ϵ
r
and
ϵ
w
are emissivities of the pavement and the wall for at least the reasons that it is known to use special computations to account for shadow effects in order to estimate the solar flux received either by the walls or the roads, as taught by Masson; e.g., see pg. 368, Section 2.7.1. Direct Solar Radiation.
Regarding claim 7, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson discloses: if the internal temperature
T
i
n
of the building under air conditioning or natural ventilation is substantially constant in a tropical island climate, an average temperature in a center of the interior of the building
T
i
n
is
T
i
n
=
h
/
b
2
T
w
w
+
T
w
w
+
T
R
2
(
h
/
b
)
2
+
1
where b is an average width of the building. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of an average temperature in a center of the interior of the building
T
i
n
is
T
i
n
=
h
/
b
2
T
w
w
+
T
w
w
+
T
R
2
(
h
/
b
)
2
+
1
where b is an average width of the building is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if the internal temperature
T
i
n
of the building under air conditioning or natural ventilation is substantially constant in a tropical island climate, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
for an innermost layer, an internal temperature of the building is used for the roof and the wall surface, and the 0 flux is used for the pavement;
G
R
n
-
n
+
1
=
λ
R
n
0.5
d
R
n
T
R
n
-
T
i
n
,
G
w
n
-
n
+
1
=
λ
w
n
0.5
d
w
n
T
w
n
-
T
i
n
,
G
r
n
-
n
+
1
=
0
when the internal temperature
T
i
n
of the building and the temperature of the external street canyon are assumed in a quasi-steady equilibrium state, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of an internal temperature of the building is used for the roof and the wall surface, and the 0 flux is used for the pavement is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when the internal temperature
T
i
n
of the building and the temperature of the external street canyon are assumed in a quasi-steady equilibrium state, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the net heat storage flux
Δ
Q
S
comprises: with each structure of the roof, the wall and the pavement having at least a three-layer structure; based on a temperature gradient inside the building or the pavement, for an outermost layer of each structure, heat transfer equations of the three planes are written as,
C
R
1
∂
T
R
1
∂
t
=
λ
R
1
d
R
1
S
R
*
+
L
R
*
-
H
R
-
L
E
R
-
G
R
1
-
2
,
C
w
1
∂
T
w
1
∂
t
=
λ
w
1
d
w
1
S
w
*
+
L
w
*
-
H
w
-
G
w
1
-
2
,
C
r
1
∂
T
r
1
∂
t
=
λ
r
1
d
r
1
S
r
*
+
L
r
*
-
H
r
-
L
E
r
-
G
r
1
-
2
where
T
*
i
is a temperature of an i-th layer within the three-layer structure;
C
*
i
is a specific heat capacity of the air;
d
*
i
is a layer thickness, fluxes
S
*
*
,
L
*
*
,
H
*
,
L
E
*
, and
G
*
1
-
2
are net solar radiation, net infrared radiation, sensible heat, latent heat, and thermal conductivity between the surface layer and the next layer, and the thermal conductivity is calculated using a Fourier heat conduction equation,
G
*
1
-
2
=
λ
*
1
-
2
0.5
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
T
*
1
-
T
*
2
an average thermal conductivity between two adjacent layers
λ
*
1
-
2
is calculated using a geometric average method:
λ
*
1
-
2
=
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
d
*
1
/
λ
*
1
+
d
*
2
/
λ
*
2
where
λ
*
1
is a thermal conductivity of the i-th layer; first layer of the surface is a surface with a thickness not exceeding a predetermined threshold, and a temperature of the first layer is simplified to an outer surface temperature; for the i-th layer, a thermal conductivity between adjacent layers is calculated;
However, Masson further discloses: wherein the net heat storage flux
Δ
Q
S
comprises:
with each structure of the roof, the wall and the pavement having at least a three-layer structure; based on a temperature gradient inside the building or the pavement, for an outermost layer of each structure, heat transfer equations of the three planes are written as,
C
R
1
∂
T
R
1
∂
t
=
λ
R
1
d
R
1
S
R
*
+
L
R
*
-
H
R
-
L
E
R
-
G
R
1
-
2
C
w
1
∂
T
w
1
∂
t
=
λ
w
1
d
w
1
S
w
*
+
L
w
*
-
H
w
-
G
w
1
-
2
C
r
1
∂
T
r
1
∂
t
=
λ
r
1
d
r
1
S
r
*
+
L
r
*
-
H
r
-
L
E
r
-
G
r
1
-
2
where
T
*
i
is a temperature of an i-th layer within the three-layer structure;
C
*
i
is a specific heat capacity of the air;
d
*
i
is a layer thickness, fluxes
S
*
*
,
L
*
*
,
H
*
,
L
E
*
, and
G
*
1
-
2
are net solar radiation, net infrared radiation, sensible heat, latent heat, and thermal conductivity between the surface layer and the next layer, and (Masson, e.g., see pgs. 362-363, section 2.3 Temperature Evolution Equations disclosing urban climatologists need at least four component surfaces to describe it: the roof, the road, and two facing walls. The problem considered here (the evaluation of the turbulent and radiative fluxes from the urban cover to the atmosphere) allows the treatment of only three types of surfaces (roof, road, wall), while keeping enough accuracy to correctly represent the different terms of the surface energy budget. This is why the TEB model uses three surface temperatures,
T
R
,
T
r
, and
T
w
, representative of roofs, roads and walls, respectively. Furthermore, in order to treat the conduction fluxes to or from the building interiors (roof, wall) or the ground (road), each surface type is discretized into several layers (figure 1). By convention, the layer with subscript 1 is the one in contact with the air (hereafter “surface layer”). The equations describing the evolution of the temperatures of the layers (representative of the middle of each layer) are based on energy budget considerations. The prognostic equations for the surface layers of the roof, wall and road respectively, read:
C
R
1
∂
T
R
1
∂
t
=
1
-
δ
s
n
o
w
R
1
d
R
1
S
R
*
+
L
R
*
-
H
R
-
L
E
R
-
G
R
1,2
(1a),
C
w
1
∂
T
w
1
∂
t
=
1
d
w
1
S
w
*
+
L
w
*
-
H
w
-
G
w
1
-
2
(1b),
C
r
1
∂
T
r
1
∂
t
=
1
-
δ
s
n
o
w
R
1
d
r
1
S
r
*
+
L
r
*
-
H
r
-
L
E
r
-
G
r
1,2
(1c); see also pg. 364, paras. [0001]-[0002] disclosing where the subscript * denotes either R, r, or w, describing roof, road and wall variables respectively. This convention is used in the rest of the paper. Here,
T
*
k
is the temperature of the kth layer of the considered surface;
C
*
k
represents the heat capacity,
λ
k
the thermal conductivity and
d
*
k
the layer thickness. The fluxes
S
*
*
,
L
*
*
,
H
*
,
L
E
*
,
G
*
1,2
,
G
*
s
n
o
w
1
denotes net solar radiation, net infrared radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and conduction heat flux between the surface layer and the underlying layer, conduction heat fluxes between the base of the snow mantel and the surface, respectively;
δ
s
n
o
w
*
is the snow fraction on the surface (which is zero on the walls)).
the thermal conductivity is calculated using a Fourier heat conduction equation,
G
*
1
-
2
=
λ
*
1
-
2
0.5
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
T
*
1
-
T
*
2
(Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also pg. 365 and equation 3 disclosing in these equations
G
*
k
,
k
+
1
=
λ
*
k
,
k
+
1
T
*
k
-
T
*
k
+
1
1
2
d
*
k
+
d
*
k
+
1
(3); examiner notes that equation 3 is construed as the Fourier heat conduction equation).
an average thermal conductivity between two adjacent layers
λ
*
1
-
2
is calculated using a geometric average method:
λ
*
1
-
2
=
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
d
*
1
/
λ
*
1
+
d
*
2
/
λ
*
2
(Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also equation 4 disclosing:
λ
*
k
,
k
+
1
=
d
*
k
+
d
*
k
+
1
d
*
k
/
λ
*
k
+
d
*
k
+
1
/
λ
*
k
+
1
(4); examiner notes that
λ
*
k
,
k
+
1
of equation 4 is construed as
λ
*
1
-
2
, i.e., an average thermal conductivity between two adjacent layers, wherein
d
*
k
+
d
*
k
+
1
d
*
k
/
λ
*
k
+
d
*
k
+
1
/
λ
*
k
+
1
is construed as a geometric average method).
where
λ
*
1
is a thermal conductivity of the i-th layer; (Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above to pg. 364, para. [0001 denoting kth layer of
λ
k
).
first layer of the surface is a surface with a thickness not exceeding a predetermined threshold, and a temperature of the first layer is simplified to an outer surface temperature; for the i-th layer, a thermal conductivity between adjacent layers is calculated; (Masson, e.g., see pg. 364 disclosing it is assumed that the surface layer of each surface is sufficiently thin such that the layer-averaged temperature can be used to evaluate the radiative and turbulent surface fluxes. This means that the surface temperatures
T
*
are computed as
T
*
=
T
*
1
. For the sake of clarity, the 1 subscript will be removed in the following sections. The other layer temperatures evolve according to a simple heat conduction equation. For the kth layer:
C
*
k
∂
T
*
k
∂
t
=
1
d
*
k
G
*
k
-
1
,
k
-
G
*
k
,
k
+
1
; see also pg. 365 and equations 5-7 disclosing the lower boundary conditions for the roofs and walls are given by the building internal temperature, that for the road being represented as a zero flux lower boundary. The fluxes between the nth layer (the inner layer) and the underlying material are then:
G
R
n
,
n
+
1
=
λ
n
T
R
n
-
T
i
b
l
d
1
2
d
R
n
(5) ,
G
w
n
,
n
+
1
=
λ
n
T
w
n
-
T
i
b
l
d
1
2
d
w
n
(6),
G
r
n
,
n
+
1
=
0
(7)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Masson’s wherein the net heat storage flux
Δ
Q
S
comprises: with each structure of the roof, the wall and the pavement having at least a three-layer structure; based on a temperature gradient inside the building or the pavement, for an outermost layer of each structure, heat transfer equations of the three planes are written as,
C
R
1
∂
T
R
1
∂
t
=
λ
R
1
d
R
1
S
R
*
+
L
R
*
-
H
R
-
L
E
R
-
G
R
1
-
2
,
C
w
1
∂
T
w
1
∂
t
=
λ
w
1
d
w
1
S
w
*
+
L
w
*
-
H
w
-
G
w
1
-
2
,
C
r
1
∂
T
r
1
∂
t
=
λ
r
1
d
r
1
S
r
*
+
L
r
*
-
H
r
-
L
E
r
-
G
r
1
-
2
where
T
*
i
is a temperature of an i-th layer within the three-layer structure;
C
*
i
is a specific heat capacity of the air;
d
*
i
is a layer thickness, fluxes
S
*
*
,
L
*
*
,
H
*
,
L
E
*
, and
G
*
1
-
2
are net solar radiation, net infrared radiation, sensible heat, latent heat, and thermal conductivity between the surface layer and the next layer, and the thermal conductivity is calculated using a Fourier heat conduction equation,
G
*
1
-
2
=
λ
*
1
-
2
0.5
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
T
*
1
-
T
*
2
an average thermal conductivity between two adjacent layers
λ
*
1
-
2
is calculated using a geometric average method:
λ
*
1
-
2
=
d
*
1
+
d
*
2
d
*
1
/
λ
*
1
+
d
*
2
/
λ
*
2
where
λ
*
1
is a thermal conductivity of the i-th layer; first layer of the surface is a surface with a thickness not exceeding a predetermined threshold, and a temperature of the first layer is simplified to an outer surface temperature; for the i-th layer, a thermal conductivity between adjacent layers is calculated for at least the reasons that in order to treat the conduction fluxes to or from the building interiors or the ground, each surface type is discretized into several layers, as taught by Masson; e.g., see pg. 363.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of Marciotto et al. (Marciotto, Edson R. et al. “Modeling study of the aspect ratio influence on urban canopy energy fluxes with a modified wall-canyon energy budget scheme.” Building and Environment 45 (2010): 2497-2505.), hereinafter Marciotto.
Regarding claim 3, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the short-wave radiation comprises: averaging direct solar radiant fluxes of the pavement
S
r
⇓
, a west wall
S
w
w
⇓
, an east wall
S
w
e
⇓
and the roof
S
R
⇓
are calculated according to a perpendicular angle of the street to a sun direction:
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
,
S
w
w
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
w
e
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
χ
S
⇓
where
S
⇓
is direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface,
θ
is an angle between a sun angle and an axial direction of the canyon,
λ
is an angle between a sun direction and a normal direction of the wall,
χ
is a ratio of a direct radiation to a total radiation at a top of a street canyon, h is a height of the street canyon, and w is a width of the street canyon; according to an orientation change of the street canyon, the width w of the street canyon is corrected as
w
/
sin
θ
; after a heat flux of the wall is obtained, the heat flux of the wall is multiplied by
sin
θ
for correction, where
θ
0
is an orientation of the street canyon where the pavement does not receive direct sunlight at all
θ
0
=
arcsin
min
w
h
1
tan
λ
;
1
all direct radiant fluxes obtained by the street canyon are averaged according to all possible changes in the direction of the street canyon, wherein two integrals are used, one between
θ
=
0
and
θ
=
θ
0
, and the other between
θ
=
θ
0
and
θ
=
π
2
; wherein average direct solar fluxes of the wall, the pavement and the roof are:
S
r
⇓
=
S
⇓
2
θ
0
π
-
2
π
h
w
tan
λ
(
1
-
cos
θ
0
)
,
S
w
⇓
=
S
⇓
w
h
1
2
-
θ
0
π
+
1
π
tan
λ
1
-
cos
θ
0
,
S
R
⇓
=
S
⇓
,
S
↓
is a scattered solar radiation available on the horizontal surface, and an amount of scattered solar radiation received by a surface in the street canyon is directly obtained from the sky viewing angle coefficient; due to an influence of a shape of the street canyon and high-reflectivity building surface materials, the short-wave radiation is calculated to solve a geometric system with an infinite number of reflecting surfaces when direct and diffuse reflectivities of each surface are the same, an energy stored by the pavement
A
r
and an energy stored by the wall
A
w
when a first reflection occurs are:
A
r
0
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
A
w
0
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
where
α
r
and
α
w
represent the direct and diffuse reflectivities of the pavement and the wall, respectively; energies of the reflectivities from the pavement
R
r
and from the wall
R
w
are:
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
after a n-th reflection occur,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
,
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
n
+
1
-
α
r
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
w
)
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
)
,
R
r
n
+
1
=
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
,
R
w
n
+
1
=
α
w
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
the following is obtained according to recursive formulas,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
0
+
1
-
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
,
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
0
+
Ψ
w
1
-
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
+
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
(
1
-
α
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
, and
∑
k
=
0
n
R
r
k
=
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
r
0
,
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
=
A
w
Ψ
w
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
r
k
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
w
0
, for infinite reflections, the following is obtained by solving a geometric system,
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
,
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
M
r
is a sum of a pavement reflection and
M
w
is a sum of wall reflections,
M
r
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
,
M
w
=
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
where
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
α
r
S
r
↓
,
R
w
0
=
α
r
S
w
⇓
+
α
r
S
w
↓
a total solar radiation absorbed by the pavement is
S
r
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the wall is
S
w
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the roof is
S
R
*
:
S
r
*
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
1
-
α
r
S
r
↓
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
M
w
,
S
w
*
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
1
-
α
w
S
w
↓
+
1
-
α
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
M
w
+
1
-
α
w
Ψ
w
M
r
,
S
R
*
=
1
-
α
R
S
R
⇓
+
1
-
α
R
S
R
↓
.
However, Masson further discloses: averaging direct solar radiant fluxes of the pavement
S
r
⇓
, a west wall
S
w
w
⇓
, an east wall
S
w
e
⇓
and the roof
S
R
⇓
are calculated according to a perpendicular angle of the street to a sun direction:
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 368 illustrating fig. 2 disclosing solar radiation received in a canyon perpendicular to the sun direction; left hand: sun low over the horizon
λ
>
λ
0
; right hand: sun high over the horizon
λ
<
λ
0
; see also pg. 369, first equation:
S
r
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
).
S
w
w
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
S
w
e
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
χ
S
⇓
where
S
⇓
is direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface,
θ
is an angle between a sun angle and an axial direction of the canyon,
λ
is an angle between a sun direction and a normal direction of the wall,
χ
is a ratio of a direct radiation to a total radiation at a top of a street canyon, h is a height of the street canyon, and w is a width of the street canyon;
according to an orientation change of the street canyon, the width w of the street canyon is corrected as
w
/
sin
θ
; after a heat flux of the wall is obtained, the heat flux of the wall is multiplied by
sin
θ
for correction, where
θ
0
is an orientation of the street canyon where the pavement does not receive direct sunlight at all
θ
0
=
arcsin
min
w
h
1
tan
λ
;
1
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 369, para. [0001] disclosing in order to take into account the other canyon orientations, one should replace
w
by
w
/
sin
θ
in the above expressions, and then multiply the wall fluxes by
sin
θ
. Then let
θ
0
be the critical canyon orientation for which the road is no longer in the light, or for which the radiation is minimum when the sun is high enough, i.e.:
θ
0
=
arcsin
min
w
h
1
tan
λ
;
1
).
all direct radiant fluxes obtained by the street canyon are averaged according to all possible changes in the direction of the street canyon, wherein two integrals are used, one between
θ
=
0
and
θ
=
θ
0
, and the other between
θ
=
θ
0
and
θ
=
π
2
;
wherein average direct solar fluxes of the wall, the pavement and the roof are:
S
r
⇓
=
S
⇓
2
θ
0
π
-
2
π
h
w
tan
λ
(
1
-
cos
θ
0
)
S
w
⇓
=
S
⇓
w
h
1
2
-
θ
0
π
+
1
π
tan
λ
1
-
cos
θ
0
S
R
⇓
=
S
⇓
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 369, para. [0002] disclosing averaging a flux with respect to the canyon orientation is performed with two integrations, one between
θ
=
0
and
θ
=
θ
0
, and the other one between
θ
=
θ
0
and
θ
=
π
2
. The direct solar fluxes for walls, road and roofs then read:
S
r
⇓
=
S
⇓
2
θ
0
π
-
2
π
h
w
tan
λ
1
-
cos
θ
0
,
S
w
⇓
=
S
⇓
w
h
1
2
-
θ
0
π
+
1
π
tan
λ
1
-
cos
θ
0
,
S
R
⇓
=
S
⇓
).
S
↓
is a scattered solar radiation available on the horizontal surface, and (Masson, e.g., see pg. 361 to table II disclosing
S
↓
- downward diffuse solar radiation on an horizontal surface
W
m
-
2
)
an amount of scattered solar radiation received by a surface in the street canyon is directly obtained from the sky viewing angle coefficient; due to an influence of a shape of the street canyon and high-reflectivity building surface materials, the short-wave radiation is calculated to solve a geometric system with an infinite number of reflecting surfaces when direct and diffuse reflectivities of each surface are the same, an energy stored by the pavement
A
r
and an energy stored by the wall
A
w
when a first reflection occurs are:
A
r
0
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
A
w
0
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
where
α
r
and
α
w
represent the direct and diffuse reflectivities of the pavement and the wall, respectively; (Masson, e.g., see pg. 369, section 2.7.2. Solar Radiation Reflections disclosing the scattered solar radiation received by the surface
S
*
↓
is directly deduced from the sky-view factors. Because of the canyon shape and the possible high albedo of the surfaces (white paint, snow), the shortwave radiative budget is computed by resolving a geometric system for an infinite number of reflections. The reflections are assumed to be isotropic. Details of the following calculations are given in Appendix A; see also pg. 394 to Appendix A disclosing suppose hereafter that the direct and scattered albedos for each surface are identical. If this is not the case, only the first direct solar reflection would be modified. When the first reflections occurs, the fluxes stored by the road and wall,
A
r
and
A
w
are respectively:
A
r
0
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
A
w
0
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
).
energies of the reflectivities from the pavement
R
r
and from the wall
R
w
are:
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
(Mason, e.g., see pg. 394, Appendix A disclosing the reflected parts
R
r
and
R
w
are:
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
; see also pgs. 369-370 disclosing the equations
R
r
0
=
α
r
-
S
r
⇓
+
α
r
-
S
r
↓
, and
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
; wherein the examiner notes that both
R
r
0
and
R
w
0
both incorporate energies of the reflected parts).
after a n-th reflection occur,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
n
+
1
-
α
r
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
w
)
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
)
R
r
n
+
1
=
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
R
w
n
+
1
=
α
w
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
(Masson, e.g., see pgs. 394-395, Appendix A disclosing
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
,
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
n
+
1
-
α
r
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
w
)
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
)
,
R
r
n
+
1
=
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
, and
R
w
n
+
1
=
α
w
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
)
the following is obtained according to recursive formulas,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
0
+
1
-
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
0
+
Ψ
w
1
-
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
+
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
(
1
-
α
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 395, Appendix A disclosing
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
0
+
1
-
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
, and
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
0
+
Ψ
w
1
-
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
+
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
(
1
-
α
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
)
and
∑
k
=
0
n
R
r
k
=
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
r
0
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
=
A
w
Ψ
w
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
r
k
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
w
0
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 395, Appendix A disclosing
∑
k
=
0
n
R
r
k
=
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
r
0
,
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
=
A
w
Ψ
w
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
r
k
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
w
0
)
for infinite reflections, the following is obtained by solving a geometric system,
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 395 disclosing solving this geometric system yields, in the case of an infinite number of reflections:
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
=
M
r
, and
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
=
M
w
).
M
r
is a sum of a pavement reflection and
M
w
is a sum of wall reflections,
M
r
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
M
w
=
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
(Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also pg. 369 to equations 16 and 17).
where
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
α
r
S
r
↓
R
w
0
=
α
r
S
w
⇓
+
α
r
S
w
↓
(Masson, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically to pgs. 369-370 disclosing
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
and
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
).
a total solar radiation absorbed by the pavement is
S
r
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the wall is
S
w
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the roof is
S
R
*
:
S
r
*
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
1
-
α
r
S
r
↓
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
M
w
S
w
*
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
1
-
α
w
S
w
↓
+
1
-
α
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
M
w
+
1
-
α
w
Ψ
w
M
r
S
R
*
=
1
-
α
R
S
R
⇓
+
1
-
α
R
S
R
↓
.
(Masson, e.g., see pg. 370 to equations 18-19 disclosing the total solar radiation absorbed by each of the surface types is
S
r
*
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
1
-
α
r
S
r
↓
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
M
w
,
S
w
*
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
1
-
α
w
S
w
↓
+
1
-
α
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
M
w
+
1
-
α
w
Ψ
w
M
r
, and
S
R
*
=
1
-
α
R
S
R
⇓
+
1
-
α
R
S
R
↓
.)
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Masson’s wherein the short-wave radiation comprises: averaging direct solar radiant fluxes of the pavement
S
r
⇓
, according to an orientation change of the street canyon, the width w of the street canyon is corrected as
w
/
sin
θ
; after a heat flux of the wall is obtained, the heat flux of the wall is multiplied by
sin
θ
for correction, where
θ
0
is an orientation of the street canyon where the pavement does not receive direct sunlight at all
θ
0
=
arcsin
min
w
h
1
tan
λ
;
1
all direct radiant fluxes obtained by the street canyon are averaged according to all possible changes in the direction of the street canyon, wherein two integrals are used, one between
θ
=
0
and
θ
=
θ
0
, and the other between
θ
=
θ
0
and
θ
=
π
2
; wherein average direct solar fluxes of the wall, the pavement and the roof are:
S
r
⇓
=
S
⇓
2
θ
0
π
-
2
π
h
w
tan
λ
(
1
-
cos
θ
0
)
,
S
w
⇓
=
S
⇓
w
h
1
2
-
θ
0
π
+
1
π
tan
λ
1
-
cos
θ
0
,
S
R
⇓
=
S
⇓
,
S
↓
is a scattered solar radiation available on the horizontal surface, and an amount of scattered solar radiation received by a surface in the street canyon is directly obtained from the sky viewing angle coefficient; due to an influence of a shape of the street canyon and high-reflectivity building surface materials, the short-wave radiation is calculated to solve a geometric system with an infinite number of reflecting surfaces when direct and diffuse reflectivities of each surface are the same, an energy stored by the pavement
A
r
and an energy stored by the wall
A
w
when a first reflection occurs are:
A
r
0
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
A
w
0
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
where
α
r
and
α
w
represent the direct and diffuse reflectivities of the pavement and the wall, respectively; energies of the reflectivities from the pavement
R
r
and from the wall
R
w
are:
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
S
r
↓
,
R
w
0
=
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
S
w
↓
after a n-th reflection occur,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
,
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
n
+
1
-
α
r
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
(
1
-
α
w
)
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
)
,
R
r
n
+
1
=
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
R
w
(
n
)
,
R
w
n
+
1
=
α
w
Ψ
w
R
r
n
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
R
w
n
the following is obtained according to recursive formulas,
A
r
n
+
1
=
A
r
0
+
1
-
α
r
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
,
A
w
n
+
1
=
A
w
0
+
Ψ
w
1
-
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
+
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
(
1
-
α
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
, and
∑
k
=
0
n
R
r
k
=
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
α
r
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
r
0
,
∑
k
=
0
n
R
w
k
=
A
w
Ψ
w
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
r
k
+
α
w
(
1
-
2
Ψ
w
)
∑
k
=
0
n
-
1
R
w
k
+
R
w
0
, for infinite reflections, the following is obtained by solving a geometric system,
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
,
∑
k
=
0
∞
R
r
k
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
M
r
is a sum of a pavement reflection and
M
w
is a sum of wall reflections,
M
r
=
R
r
0
+
1
-
Ψ
r
α
r
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
,
M
w
=
R
w
0
+
Ψ
w
α
w
R
r
0
1
-
1
-
2
Ψ
w
α
w
+
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
Ψ
w
α
r
α
w
where
R
r
0
=
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
α
r
S
r
↓
,
R
w
0
=
α
r
S
w
⇓
+
α
r
S
w
↓
a total solar radiation absorbed by the pavement is
S
r
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the wall is
S
w
*
, a total solar radiation absorbed by the roof is
S
R
*
:
S
r
*
=
1
-
α
r
S
r
⇓
+
1
-
α
r
S
r
↓
+
(
1
-
α
r
)
(
1
-
Ψ
r
)
M
w
,
S
w
*
=
1
-
α
w
S
w
⇓
+
1
-
α
w
S
w
↓
+
1
-
α
w
1
-
2
Ψ
w
M
w
+
1
-
α
w
Ψ
w
M
r
,
S
R
*
=
1
-
α
R
S
R
⇓
+
1
-
α
R
S
R
↓
for at least the reasons that it is known to deduce the scattered solar radiation received by the surfaces from the sky-view factors, wherein the shortwave radiative budget is computed by the surfaces and the shortwave radiative budget is computed by resolving a geometric system for an infinite number of reflections, as taught by Masson; e.g., see pg. 369.
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: a west wall
S
w
w
⇓
, an east wall
S
w
e
⇓
and the roof
S
R
⇓
are calculated according to a perpendicular angle of the street to a sun direction:
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
,
S
w
w
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
w
e
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
χ
S
⇓
where
S
⇓
is direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface,
θ
is an angle between a sun angle and an axial direction of the canyon,
λ
is an angle between a sun direction and a normal direction of the wall,
χ
is a ratio of a direct radiation to a total radiation at a top of a street canyon, h is a height of the street canyon, and w is a width of the street canyon;
However, Marciotto further discloses: a west wall
S
w
w
⇓
, an east wall
S
w
e
⇓
and the roof
S
R
⇓
are calculated according to a perpendicular angle of the street to a sun direction:
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
,
S
w
w
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
w
e
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
χ
S
⇓
where
S
⇓
is direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface,
θ
is an angle between a sun angle and an axial direction of the canyon,
λ
is an angle between a sun direction and a normal direction of the wall,
χ
is a ratio of a direct radiation to a total radiation at a top of a street canyon, h is a height of the street canyon, and w is a width of the street canyon; (Marciotto, e.g., see pg. 2499, col. 1 and eqns. (2b), (2c), and (2d) disclosing the sky view factors for the road and walls are calculated using the above equations as a function of the aspect ratio are shown in fig. 2, where they are compared with those proposed by Oke and Masson. To derive the equations describing the incoming direct solar radiation on each solid surface, road, west wall, east wall and roof, it is assumed that the zenith angle varies from the east
(
-
π
/
2
)
to the West
π
/
2
so that we obtain:
S
w
w
d
i
r
=
χ
S
0
tan
λ
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
χ
S
0
tan
λ
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
w
e
d
i
r
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
χ
S
0
tan
λ
χ
S
0
tan
λ
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
f
d
i
r
=
χ
S
0
; where
S
0
is the global downward short-wave radiation at the canyon top,
λ
is the zenith angle,
λ
0
=
arctan
1
/
h
/
d
is the angle that implies complete road shading, and
χ
is the ratio of the direct solar radiation to the global solar radiation; examiner note sthat
S
0
is construed as necessarily being
S
↓
and
χ
is construed as
1
2
, which meets the limitation of a ratio of the direct solar radiation to the global solar radiation).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Marciotto’s a west wall
S
w
w
⇓
, an east wall
S
w
e
⇓
and the roof
S
R
⇓
are calculated according to a perpendicular angle of the street to a sun direction:
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
λ
>
λ
0
1
-
h
w
tan
λ
S
⇓
f
o
r
λ
<
λ
0
,
S
w
w
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
0
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
w
e
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
0
f
o
r
-
π
2
≤
λ
≤
-
λ
0
1
2
tan
(
λ
)
S
⇓
1
2
w
h
S
⇓
f
o
r
-
λ
0
≤
λ
≤
0
f
o
r
0
≤
λ
≤
π
2
,
S
R
⇓
=
θ
=
π
2
=
χ
S
⇓
where
S
⇓
is direct solar radiation on a horizontal surface,
θ
is an angle between a sun angle and an axial direction of the canyon,
λ
is an angle between a sun direction and a normal direction of the wall,
χ
is a ratio of a direct radiation to a total radiation at a top of a street canyon, h is a height of the street canyon, and w is a width of the street canyon for at least the reasons that the net radiation, i.e. short- plus long-wave, on each surface is computed in the same manner as in Masson, as taught by Marciotto; e.g., see pg. 2499, col. 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of Allen et al. (Allen, L & Lindberg, Fredrik & Grimmond, Sue. (2011). Global to city scale urban anthropogenic heat flux: Model and variability. International Journal of Climatology. 31. 1990-2005. 10.1002/joc.2210.), hereinafter Allen.
Regarding claim 4, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the anthropogenic heat production specifically comprises: a current anthropogenic heat flux in a street canyon is
Q
F
=
Q
F
V
+
Q
F
H
+
Q
F
M
; where
Q
F
V
,
Q
F
H
, and
Q
F
M
are heat generated by vehicles, fixed heat sources and biological metabolism, respectively.
However, Allen further discloses: wherein the anthropogenic heat production specifically comprises: a current anthropogenic heat flux in a street canyon is
Q
F
=
Q
F
V
+
Q
F
H
+
Q
F
M
; where
Q
F
V
,
Q
F
H
, and
Q
F
M
are heat generated by vehicles, fixed heat sources and biological metabolism, respectively. (Allen, e.g., see pg. 2, section 2. Anthropogenic heat flux modelling disclosing the majority of models are based upon a simple partitioning of the sources of the anthropogenic heat flux
Q
F
:
Q
F
=
Q
V
+
Q
B
+
Q
M
(
W
m
-
2
)
, where
Q
V
is heat from vehicle emissions,
Q
B
is heat released from buildings; construed by the examiner to be a fixed heat source, and
Q
M
is human metabolic heat).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Allen’s anthropogenic heat production specifically comprises: a current anthropogenic heat flux in a street canyon is
Q
F
=
Q
F
V
+
Q
F
H
+
Q
F
M
; where
Q
F
V
,
Q
F
H
, and
Q
F
M
are heat generated by vehicles, fixed heat sources and biological metabolism, respectively for at least the reasons that while it is not possible to directly measure anthropogenic heat flux, consumption may be assumed to be equivalent to anthropogenic sensible heat, in addition a latent heat component from large commercial buildings having evaporative cooling, as taught by Allen; e.g., see pg. 2, section 2. Anthropogenic heat flux modeling.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of Marciotto, in further view of Kusaka et al. (Kusaka, Hiroyuki & Kondo, Hiroaki & Kikegawa, Yukihiro & Kimura, Fujio. (2001). A Simple Single-Layer Urban Canopy Model For Atmospheric Models: Comparison With Multi-Layer And Slab Models. Boundary-Layer Meteorology. 101. 329-358. 10.1023/A:1019207923078.), hereinafter Kusaka.
Regarding claim 5, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson discloses: when a specific heat of air in an urban canopy is ignored,
H
a
is a weighted average of a wall flux and a road flux in the street canyon, that is:
H
a
=
2
h
/
w
Q
w
+
Q
R
in a Town Energy Balance (TEB) model proposed by Masson,
C
H
*
u
*
is a reciprocal of aerodynamic resistance,
(
1
/
R
E
S
*
)
, which is determined by the wind velocities in the street canyon and at a top of the street canyon; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of
H
a
is a weighted average of a wall flux and a road flux in the street canyon is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when a specific heat of air in an urban canopy is ignored, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
if a surface covered by plants such as green space is not considered, an average sensible heat flow of the street canyon depends on a weighted average area of the roof, the wall and the pavement,
Q
H
=
b
Q
H
,
R
+
w
Q
H
,
r
+
h
Q
H
,
w
w
+
Q
H
,
w
e
w
+
b
,
wherein h is a height of the street canyon, w is a width of the street canyon, and b is an average width of the buildings. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of an average sensible heat flow of the street canyon depends on a weighted average area of the roof, the wall and the pavement is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., if a surface covered by plants such as green space is not considered, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the sensible heat flux
Q
H
comprises:
Q
H
,
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
T
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
-
T
c
a
n
,
Q
H
,
R
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
T
R
-
T
a
i
r
,
Q
H
,
c
a
n
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
T
c
a
n
-
T
a
i
r
where, r, ww, we, R, and can refer to the pavement, the west wall, the east wall, the roof, and a street canyon, respectively; ρ is an air density,
C
p
is a specific heat under a constant pressure;
T
c
a
n
is a temperature in a center of the street canyon (
w
/
2
,
h
/
2
)
and a wind velocity above the street canyon;
U
a
i
r
and
T
a
i
r
are an input wind velocity and an input temperature at a reference height of a turbulence model, and
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are dimensionless velocity transfer coefficients; differences between the
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are only a height and a roughness of a reference layer; the same zero plane layer and roughness are used, and the values of the zero plane layer and roughness are equal, and are calculated as follows:
C
H
*
u
*
=
k
u
*
Ψ
h
where k is a Von Karman constant,
u
*
is a friction velocity of the reference layer, and
Ψ
h
is a general integral function,
Ψ
h
=
∫
ζ
T
ζ
'
ϕ
h
ζ
d
ζ
where
ζ
'
=
z
a
-
d
L
;
ζ
T
=
z
T
/
L
,
z
T
is a roughness length of a heat flow; L is an Obukhov stability length,
L
=
-
ρ
C
p
T
u
*
3
k
g
H
a
where T is an average temperature of this layer,
H
a
is an air flux between the street canyon and an atmosphere, and L is an implicit function, which is solved by simplified iteration;
However, Marciotto further disclose: wherein the sensible heat flux
Q
H
comprises:
Q
H
,
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
T
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
-
T
c
a
n
Q
H
,
R
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
T
R
-
T
a
i
r
Q
H
,
c
a
n
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
T
c
a
n
-
T
a
i
r
where, r, ww, we, R, and can refer to the pavement, the west wall, the east wall, the roof, and a street canyon, respectively; ρ is an air density,
C
p
is a specific heat under a constant pressure;
T
c
a
n
is a temperature in a center of the street canyon (
w
/
2
,
h
/
2
)
and a wind velocity above the street canyon; (Marciotto, e.g., see pgs. 2499-2500 disclosing the sensible heat flux contribution of each solid surface, and the street canyon itself are then given by a bulk formulation
Q
H
,
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
T
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
-
T
c
a
n
,
Q
H
f
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
T
f
-
T
a
i
r
,
Q
H
c
a
n
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
T
c
a
n
-
T
a
i
r
, where the subscripts, r, ww, we, and f refer, respectively, to road (street), west wall, east wall, and roof, ρ is the air density,
c
p
is the specific heat at constant pressure, and
T
c
a
n
and
T
a
i
r
are, respectively, the air temperature in the center of the canyon (
d
/
2
,
h
/
2
) and the air temperature above the canopy).
U
a
i
r
and
T
a
i
r
are an input wind velocity and an input temperature at a reference height of a turbulence model, and
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are dimensionless velocity transfer coefficients; differences between the
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are only a height and a roughness of a reference layer; (Marciotto, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also pgs. 2499-2500 disclosing the difference between
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
depends on the values of
z
0
and
d
0
. for the street and walls
U
c
a
n
is the wind speed assumed to be in the center of the canyon (
d
/
2
,
h
/
2
) and
U
t
o
p
is the wind speed above the canopy. The radiative and sensible heat fluxes from the canyon walls are computed by taking into account the two side walls of the canyons separately; see also pg. 2498, List of symbols disclosing
U
a
i
r
– wind speed at the first level of the turbulence model (used to feed the urban canopy model) (
m
s
-
1
),
z
0
– roughness length (m), d – distance between buildings (m),
C
H
– heat transfer coefficient (dimensionless)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with Marciotto’s wherein the sensible heat flux
Q
H
comprises:
Q
H
,
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
T
r
,
w
w
,
w
e
-
T
c
a
n
,
Q
H
,
R
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
T
R
-
T
a
i
r
,
Q
H
,
c
a
n
=
ρ
C
p
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
T
c
a
n
-
T
a
i
r
where, r, ww, we, R, and can refer to the pavement, the west wall, the east wall, the roof, and a street canyon, respectively; ρ is an air density,
C
p
is a specific heat under a constant pressure;
T
c
a
n
is a temperature in a center of the street canyon (
w
/
2
,
h
/
2
)
and a wind velocity above the street canyon;
U
a
i
r
and
T
a
i
r
are an input wind velocity and an input temperature at a reference height of a turbulence model, and
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are dimensionless velocity transfer coefficients; differences between the
C
H
1
and
C
H
2
are only a height and a roughness of a reference layer for at least the reasons that it is known that the atmospheric stability within the urban roughness layer is close to neutral or adiabatic because of the intense mechanical mixing due to the buildings and due to the anthropogenic heat fluxes, as taught by Marciotto; e.g., see pg. 2499, col. 2.
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of Marciotto is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: the same zero plane layer and roughness are used, and the values of the zero plane layer and roughness are equal, and are calculated as follows:
C
H
*
u
*
=
k
u
*
Ψ
h
where k is a Von Karman constant,
u
*
is a friction velocity of the reference layer, and
Ψ
h
is a general integral function,
Ψ
h
=
∫
ζ
T
ζ
'
ϕ
h
ζ
d
ζ
where
ζ
'
=
z
a
-
d
L
;
ζ
T
=
z
T
/
L
,
z
T
is a roughness length of a heat flow; L is an Obukhov stability length,
L
=
-
ρ
C
p
T
u
*
3
k
g
H
a
where T is an average temperature of this layer,
H
a
is an air flux between the street canyon and an atmosphere, and L is an implicit function, which is solved by simplified iteration.
However, Kusaka further discloses: the same zero plane layer and roughness are used, and the values of the zero plane layer and roughness are equal, and are calculated as follows:
C
H
*
u
*
=
k
u
*
Ψ
h
where k is a Von Karman constant,
u
*
is a friction velocity of the reference layer, and
Ψ
h
is a general integral function, (Kusaka, e.g., see fig. 1; see also pgs. 337-338, section 2.4. Sensible Heat Flux disclosing
T
s
is the replaced canyon surface temperature defined at
z
T
+
d
, which is calculated from Equations (1), (20), (21), and (23) and (25) below;
U
a
and
U
s
are wind speeds at height
z
a
and
z
0
+
d
, respectively (figure 1). The estimation of the sensible heat flux from a limited area has not yet been properly formulated. The sensible heat exchange between the canyon space and the overlaying atmosphere is the heat flux through the canyon top, and is
H
a
=
ρ
c
p
k
u
*
Ψ
h
(
T
s
-
T
a
)
; examiner notes that algebraically the equations reduces to
H
a
ρ
C
p
(
T
s
-
T
a
)
=
k
u
*
Ψ
h
, wherein
H
a
ρ
C
p
(
T
s
-
T
a
)
is construed as being equal to the term
C
H
*
u
*
. Here,
u
*
is the friction velocity and k is the Von Karman constant, ρ and
c
p
are the air density at the reference height and the heat capacity of dry air, respectively).
Ψ
h
=
∫
ζ
T
ζ
'
ϕ
h
ζ
d
ζ
where
ζ
'
=
z
a
-
d
L
;
ζ
T
=
z
T
/
L
,
z
T
is a roughness length of a heat flow; L is an Obukhov stability length,
L
=
-
ρ
C
p
T
u
*
3
k
g
H
a
where T is an average temperature of this layer,
H
a
is an air flux between the street canyon and an atmosphere, and L is an implicit function, which is solved by simplified iteration; (Kusaka, e.g., see pg. 338 disclosing
Ψ
h
is the integrated universal function,
Ψ
h
=
∫
ζ
T
ζ
'
ϕ
h
ζ
'
d
ζ
'
, where
ζ
T
=
z
T
/
L
and
ζ
=
(
z
a
-
d
)
/
L
is the Obukhov stability length
L
=
-
ρ
c
p
T
u
*
3
k
g
H
a
, where T is the mean temperature,
z
T
is the roughness length for heat. Although L is from an implicit equation under unstable conditions, it can be computed by iterations; see also pg. 331 to fig. 1 disclosing
H
a
is the sensible heat flux from the canyon space to the atmosphere).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of Marciotto’s method with Kusaka’s the same zero plane layer and roughness are used, and the values of the zero plane layer and roughness are equal, and are calculated as follows:
C
H
*
u
*
=
k
u
*
Ψ
h
where k is a Von Karman constant,
u
*
is a friction velocity of the reference layer, and
Ψ
h
is a general integral function,
Ψ
h
=
∫
ζ
T
ζ
'
ϕ
h
ζ
d
ζ
where
ζ
'
=
z
a
-
d
L
;
ζ
T
=
z
T
/
L
,
z
T
is a roughness length of a heat flow; L is an Obukhov stability length,
L
=
-
ρ
C
p
T
u
*
3
k
g
H
a
where T is an average temperature of this layer,
H
a
is an air flux between the street canyon and an atmosphere, and L is an implicit function, which is solved by simplified iteration for at least the reasons that it is known to balance the sensible heat flux from the building and the road by the sensible heat flux to the atmosphere from the canyon space, as taught by Kusaka; e.g., see pg. 338.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson, in further view of ShiGuang et al. (ShiGuang, M., Chen, F. Enhanced modeling of latent heat flux from urban surfaces in the Noah/single-layer urban canopy coupled model. Sci. China Earth Sci. 57, 2408–2416 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-4829-0), hereinafter ShiGuang.
Regarding claim 6, Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson discloses:
Q
E
,
w
=
0
(Colombert, e.g., see table 1 disclosing Anthropogenic latent heat flux released by industries,
Q
E
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
=
0
)
Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method according to claim 1, wherein the latent heat flux
Q
E
comprises:
a direct latent heat flow between a building roof and the atmosphere
Q
E
,
R
=
l
v
B
R
ρ
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
q
R
-
q
a
i
r
where
l
v
is a latent heat of evaporation,
B
R
is a humidity parameter of the roof, between 0 and 1, 0 is completely dry, 1 is completely wet, a value of B depends on the plant and a water conditions of the surface,
ρ
is a density of the air,
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
R
is a humidity of the roof;
q
a
i
r
is a humidity at the reference height,
a latent heat flow is calculated using a similarity law for the air on the pavement and the wall and in a street canyon
Q
E
,
r
=
l
v
B
r
ρ
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
q
r
-
q
c
a
n
where
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
r
is a humidity of the pavement;
q
c
a
n
is a humidity at the street canyon,
a latent heat flow between an interior of the street canyon and a top atmosphere is
Q
E
,
c
a
n
=
l
v
ρ
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
q
c
a
n
-
q
a
i
r
.
However, ShiGuang further discloses: wherein the latent heat flux
Q
E
comprises:
a direct latent heat flow between a building roof and the atmosphere
Q
E
,
R
=
l
v
B
R
ρ
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
q
R
-
q
a
i
r
where
l
v
is a latent heat of evaporation,
B
R
is a humidity parameter of the roof, between 0 and 1, 0 is completely dry, 1 is completely wet, a value of B depends on the plant and a water conditions of the surface,
ρ
is a density of the air,
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
R
is a humidity of the roof;
q
a
i
r
is a humidity at the reference height, (ShiGuang, e.g., see eqn. 4 and pg. 2410, Section 3. Improving the modeling of urban surface latent heat fluxes (Cases 1-4) – pg. 2412 disclosing we improved the latent heat flux modeling method in the Noah/SLUCM model mainly through modifying four evaporation components. These components include irrigation over urban green areas, the oasis effect, the latent heat flux from urban impervious surfaces, and the anthropogenic latent heat source. The improved SEB equations and the calculation methods for latent heat flux and anthropogenic latent heat release are provided as follows:
Q
E
R
=
ρ
×
l
×
β
R
×
q
0
R
-
q
C
×
U
C
×
C
H
R
; see also Table 3 disclosing ρ – air density; l – latent heat of water vaporization;
β
R
– water availability in the roof;
U
C
– urban canopy wind speed;
C
H
R
– overall water vapor transfer coefficient of the roof;
q
0
R
– saturation specific humidity of the roof;
q
C
– Urban canopy specific humidity).
a latent heat flow is calculated using a similarity law for the air on the pavement and the wall and in a street canyon
Q
E
,
r
=
l
v
B
r
ρ
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
q
r
-
q
c
a
n
where
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
r
is a humidity of the pavement;
q
c
a
n
is a humidity at the street canyon, (ShiGuang, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also eqn. 6 disclosing
Q
E
G
=
ρ
×
l
×
β
g
×
q
0
G
-
q
C
×
U
C
×
C
H
G
; see also Table 3 disclosing ρ – air density; l – latent heat of water vaporization;
β
G
– water availability in the road;
U
C
– urban canopy wind speed;
C
H
G
– overall water vapor transfer coefficient of the road;
q
0
G
– saturation specific humidity of the road;
q
C
– Urban canopy specific humidity).
a latent heat flow between an interior of the street canyon and a top atmosphere is
Q
E
,
c
a
n
=
l
v
ρ
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
q
c
a
n
-
q
a
i
r
. (ShiGuang, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also eqn. 5 disclosing
Q
E
W
=
ρ
×
l
×
β
W
×
q
0
W
-
q
C
×
U
C
×
C
H
W
; see also Table 3 disclosing ρ – air density; l – latent heat of water vaporization;
β
W
– water availability in the wall;
U
C
– urban canopy wind speed;
C
H
W
– overall water vapor transfer coefficient of the wall;
q
0
W
– saturation specific humidity of the wall;
q
C
– Urban canopy specific humidity; examiner notes that a wall is construed as an “interior of the street canyon and a top atmosphere).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Colombert in view of Krayenhoff, in further view of Masson’s method with ShiGuang’s wherein the latent heat flux
Q
E
comprises: a direct latent heat flow between a building roof and the atmosphere
Q
E
,
R
=
l
v
B
R
ρ
C
H
2
U
t
o
p
q
R
-
q
a
i
r
, where
l
v
is a latent heat of evaporation,
B
R
is a humidity parameter of the roof, between 0 and 1, 0 is completely dry, 1 is completely wet, a value of B depends on the plant and a water conditions of the surface,
ρ
is a density of the air,
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
R
is a humidity of the roof;
q
a
i
r
is a humidity at the reference height, a latent heat flow is calculated using a similarity law for the air on the pavement and the wall and in a street canyon,
Q
E
,
r
=
l
v
B
r
ρ
C
H
1
U
c
a
n
q
r
-
q
c
a
n
, where
C
H
2
is a dimensionless velocity transfer coefficient, and
q
r
is a humidity of the pavement;
q
c
a
n
is a humidity at the street canyon, a latent heat flow between an interior of the street canyon and a top atmosphere is
Q
E
,
c
a
n
=
l
v
ρ
C
H
2
U
a
i
r
q
c
a
n
-
q
a
i
r
for at least the reasons that accounting for irrigation, the oasis effect, evaporation from urban impervious surfaces, and anthropogenic latent heat release, the performance of the surface model for simulating latent heat flux, net radiation flux, sensible heat flux, and heat storage may be improved, as taught by ShiGuang; e.g., see pg. 2415, col. 2.
Claim 9 does not stand rejected on the basis of prior art.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 8,781,801 B2 to Takahashi et al. relates to meteorological phenomena simulation device and method.
CN 119989736 A to Liu et al. relates to a method and device for predicting non-uniform temperature field in city three-dimensional valley.
FR 2789766 A1 to Masson relates to determination of the influence of an urban zone on the atmosphere above it, to improve weather models, by dividing the urban area into representative areas for vertical wall, roofs, and roads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 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, Lisa Caputo can be reached at (571) 272-2388. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
Prosecution Insights