DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 31 January 2023 are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
The abstract includes phrases which can be implied. Examiner suggests amending the abstract as follows:
Simulating a physical process and
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 12, and 17 below the equation recite “a viscus layer” which appears to be typographic error for “a viscous layer.”
Appropriate correction 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for simulating fluid flow about a simulated physical object, the method comprising:
…
determining boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by:
computing by the one or more computing systems, a generalized wall-boundary condition from fluid flow variables, a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.
Simulating fluid flow in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving by one or more computing systems, a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
The “computing systems” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving by one or more computing systems, a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1 wherein for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, the method further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.
The buffer layer correction factor is explicitly mathematical in light of the Specification. See generally Specification page 3 line 16 to page 4 line 2. While the correction factor recited in claim 2 is not limited to the specific equation of claim 3, the claim phrase “buffer layer correction factor” is read in light of the Specification and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “correction factor” to refer to a mathematical correction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the boundary conditions further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, and the correction factor is given according to:
ω
H
y
b
'
=
f
b
l
e
n
d
ω
H
y
b
where
ω
H
y
b
'
is the correction factor
f
b
l
e
n
d
is a blending function and
ω
H
y
b
is a viscus layer correction function.
The correction factor defined here is an explicit mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.
The viscous sublayer correction factor is explicitly mathematical in light of the Specification. See generally Specification page 3 line 16 to page 4 line 2. While the correction factor recited in claim 4 is not limited to the specific equation of claim 5, the claim phrase “viscous sublayer correction factor” is read in light of the Specification and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “correction factor” to refer to a mathematical correction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the boundary conditions further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate, with the viscous sublayer correction factor given according to:
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
=
∂
ω
v
d
∂
y
y
1
2
y
2
2
y
2
+
y
1
2
4
where
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
is the correction factor,
y
1
2
is a cell at location 1 and
y
2
2
is the cell at position 2.
The correction factor defined here is an explicit mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing the k-Omega model;
initializing the accessed k-Omega model with the determined boundary conditions; and
executing the initialized k-Omega model to simulated the fluid flow about the simulated physical object.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations. Accessing, initializing, and executing a mathematical model to perform the respective mathematical calculations of the simulation is a recitation to perform these mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, with the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, including
a first partial differential equation to determine turbulent kinetic energy of the fluid flow; and
a second partial differential equation to determine the specific energy dissipation rate of the fluid flow in the simulation space.
A partial differential equation is a mathematical equation. An explicit claim of “a partial differential” equation is a recitation of a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the location is at a buffer layer; and when at the buffer layer,
applying a correction that increase the values of energy dissipation rate only at the buffer layer by:
applying a blending function that acts on the values of energy dissipation rate at the buffer layer and prevents the blending function to affect values at the viscous layer of the boundary defined in the simulation space.
The buffer layer is mathematically defined. See Specification page 6 lines 17-18 stating “a buffer layer that is neither the viscous sublayer nor the fully turbulent logarithmic region and is typically defined by 5< y+ < 25.” Accordingly, determining whether the location is at a buffer layer is a determination of a mathematical condition.
Applying a correction by applying a blending function is applying a respective mathematical function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “blending function” is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 9 wherein applying the correction further comprises:
applying a blending function that acts on the values of energy dissipation rate at the buffer layer and prevents the blending function to affect values at the viscous layer of the boundary defined in the simulation space.
Applying a blending function is applying a respective mathematical function to the respective numerical values. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “blending function” is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. A system for simulating a physical process flow about a simulated physical object, the system comprising:
…
determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to:
compute from fluid flow variables a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.
Simulating flow in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
one or more processor devices;
memory operatively coupled to the one or more processor devices;
storage media storing a computer program comprising instructions to cause the system to:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
The “processor,” “memory,” and “storage media” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage medium performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitation analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. A computer program product for simulating a physical process, …
…
determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to:
compute from fluid flow variables a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.
Simulating physical process in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the model equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
the computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program product comprising instructions to cause a system to:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
The “computer program product” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage medium performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitation analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 20
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matyushenko, A.A. & Garbaruk, A.V. “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model” Int'l Conf. Physics, J Physics, 929 (2017) [herein “Matyushenko”] in view of US patent 10,366,182 B2 Mani, et al. [herein “Mani”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A computer-implemented method for simulating fluid flow about a simulated physical object.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” Matyushenko page 5 section “3.3 Flow around a wing in wind tunnel with no-slip side walls.” A wing is a simulated physical object. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).”
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: receiving by one or more computing systems, a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object.” Matyushenko page 5 figure 5 shows “Computational domain used for the A-Airfoil test case.” The computational domain for the A-Airfoil corresponds with a model of simulation space defining a representation of a physical object accounting for respective surfaces.
Matyushenko page 2 section 3 last sentence discloses “For all test cases computational meshes ensure grid-independent solution and convergence of iterations was achieved.” A computational mesh is a mesh.
Claim 1 further recites “determining boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by: …, a generalized wall-boundary condition from fluid flow variables.” Matyushenko page 1 section 2 disclose “The SST model contains two transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, k, and specific dissipation rate, ω.” Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) k corresponds with the k of a k-omega turbulence fluid flow model. The dissipation rate ω is a specific energy dissipation rate. Matyushenko page 2 section 2 shows the constitutive relations as:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These equations are a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” The wall-bounded flow corresponds with a wall-boundary condition for the fluid flow variables.
Claim 1 further recites “computing by the one or more computing systems.” Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).” ANSYS FLUENT is computer software. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using ANSYS FLUENT indicates using a respective computer system.
Claim 1 further recites “a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.” Matyushenko page 6 section 4 disclose “A non-linear correction for the k- ω. SST model was developed and the corrected model (SST-NL) was examined. …. for the considered flows SST-NL exceeds both «parents», namely SST and WJ-BSL-EARSM.” Exceeding the previous models indicates the corrected model (SST-NL) is considered ‘valid’ in these regions defined by the simulation space. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” Turbulent boundary layer separation corresponds with respective layers.
But Matyushenko does not explicitly name a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region; however, in analogous art of RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) estimates, Mani column 11 lines 18-19 teach “the sublayer, buffer, and log layers (y+<l00).” The sublayer corresponds with a viscous layer. The buffer corresponds with a buffer layer. The log layer corresponds with a logarithmic layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matyushenko and Mani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to consider the layers of the boundary into the system of corrected k-ω SST turbulence model for the advantageous purpose of considering “the versatility of the model.” See Mani column 11 line 19.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1 wherein for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, the method further comprises: applying by the one or more computing systems, a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” The correction is a correction factor which applies as a boundary condition over all regions including the buffer layer. Furthermore, Matyushenko abstract discloses “prevents false corner separation for flows around a wing-body junction.”
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method of claim 1, further comprises: applying by the one or more computing systems, a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” The correction is a correction factor which applies as a boundary condition over all regions including the viscous layer. Furthermore, Matyushenko abstract discloses “prevents false corner separation for flows around a wing-body junction.”
Claim 7 further recites “7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing the k-Omega model; initializing the accessed k-Omega model with the determined boundary conditions; and executing the initialized k-Omega model to simulated the fluid flow about the simulated physical object.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” Matyushenko page 5 figure 6 shows “Visualization of streamlines near wing-sidewall junction.” The visualizations correspond with simulated fluid flow about the simulated physical object with respective boundary conditions.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, with the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, including a first partial differential equation to determine turbulent kinetic energy of the fluid flow; and a second partial differential equation to determine the specific energy dissipation rate of the fluid flow in the simulation space.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.”
Matyushenko page 1 section 2 disclose “The SST model contains two transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, k, and specific dissipation rate, ω.” Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) k corresponds with the k of a k-omega turbulence fluid flow model. The dissipation rate ω is a specific energy dissipation rate. The respective SST transport equations are the partial differential equations of these respective k-ω parts.
Claim 11 recites “11. A system for simulating a physical process flow about a simulated physical object.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” Matyushenko page 5 section “3.3 Flow around a wing in wind tunnel with no-slip side walls.” A wing is a simulated physical object. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).”
Claim 11 further recites “the system comprising: one or more processor devices; memory operatively coupled to the one or more processor devices; storage media storing a computer program comprising instructions.” Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).” ANSYS FLUENT is computer software. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using ANSYS FLUENT indicates using a respective computer system.
But Matyushenko does not explicitly name a processor or memory; however, in analogous art of RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) estimates, Mani column 16 lines 25-29 teach “processor platform 1500 capable of executing instructions …. The processor platform 1500 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer.” Mani column 16 lines 35-36 teach “The processor platform 1500 of the illustrated example includes a processor 1512.” Mani column 16 lines 47-48 teach “The processor 1512 of the illustrated example includes a local memory 1513.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matyushenko and Mani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to consider using a person computer to implement the system of corrected k-ω SST turbulence model because the processor and memory of a personal computer have art recognized suitability for performing these CFD calculations.
Claim 11 further recites “to cause the system to: receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object.” Matyushenko page 5 figure 5 shows “Computational domain used for the A-Airfoil test case.” The computational domain for the A-Airfoil corresponds with a model of simulation space defining a representation of a physical object accounting for respective surfaces.
Matyushenko page 2 section 3 last sentence discloses “For all test cases computational meshes ensure grid-independent solution and convergence of iterations was achieved.” A computational mesh is a mesh.
Claim 11 further recites “determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to: compute from fluid flow variables.” Matyushenko page 1 section 2 disclose “The SST model contains two transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, k, and specific dissipation rate, ω.” Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) k corresponds with the k of a k-omega turbulence fluid flow model. The dissipation rate ω is a specific energy dissipation rate. Matyushenko page 2 section 2 shows the constitutive relations as:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These equations are a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” The wall-bounded flow corresponds with a wall-boundary condition for the fluid flow variables.
Claim 11 further recites “a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.” Matyushenko page 6 section 4 disclose “A non-linear correction for the k- ω. SST model was developed and the corrected model (SST-NL) was examined. …. for the considered flows SST-NL exceeds both «parents», namely SST and WJ-BSL-EARSM.” Exceeding the previous models indicates the corrected model (SST-NL) is considered ‘valid’ in these regions defined by the simulation space. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” Turbulent boundary layer separation corresponds with respective layers.
But Matyushenko does not explicitly name a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region; however, in analogous art of RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) estimates, Mani column 11 lines 18-19 teach “the sublayer, buffer, and log layers (y+<l00).” The sublayer corresponds with a viscous layer. The buffer corresponds with a buffer layer. The log layer corresponds with a logarithmic layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matyushenko and Mani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to consider the layers of the boundary into the system of corrected k-ω SST turbulence model for the advantageous purpose of considering “the versatility of the model.” See Mani column 11 line 19.
Dependent claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 7 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 recites “16. A computer program product for simulating a physical process.” Matyushenko title discloses “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model.” Matyushenko page 5 section “3.3 Flow around a wing in wind tunnel with no-slip side walls.” Flow around a wing is a physical process. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).”
Claim 16 further recites “the computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program product comprising instructions.” Matyushenko page 2 section 3 “The simulations of all considered flows were carried out using ANSYS FLUENT and the proposed correction was implemented using UDF (User Defined Functions).” ANSYS FLUENT is computer software. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using ANSYS FLUENT indicates using a respective computer system.
But Matyushenko does not explicitly name a storage medium; however, in analogous art of RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) estimates, Mani column 16 lines 25-29 teach “processor platform 1500 capable of executing instructions …. The processor platform 1500 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer.” Mani column 16 lines 35-36 teach “The processor platform 1500 of the illustrated example includes a processor 1512.” Mani column 16 lines 47-48 teach “The processor 1512 of the illustrated example includes a local memory 1513.” A memory of a computer is a storage medium.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matyushenko and Mani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to consider using a person computer to implement the system of corrected k-ω SST turbulence model because the processor and memory of a personal computer have art recognized suitability for performing these CFD calculations.
Claim 16 further recites “to cause a system to: receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object.” Matyushenko page 5 figure 5 shows “Computational domain used for the A-Airfoil test case.” The computational domain for the A-Airfoil corresponds with a model of simulation space defining a representation of a physical object accounting for respective surfaces.
Matyushenko page 2 section 3 last sentence discloses “For all test cases computational meshes ensure grid-independent solution and convergence of iterations was achieved.” A computational mesh is a mesh.
Claim 16 further recites “determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to: compute from fluid flow variables.” Matyushenko page 1 section 2 disclose “The SST model contains two transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, k, and specific dissipation rate, ω.” Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE) k corresponds with the k of a k-omega turbulence fluid flow model. The dissipation rate ω is a specific energy dissipation rate. Matyushenko page 2 section 2 shows the constitutive relations as:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These equations are a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” The wall-bounded flow corresponds with a wall-boundary condition for the fluid flow variables.
Claim 16 further recites “a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.” Matyushenko page 6 section 4 disclose “A non-linear correction for the k- ω. SST model was developed and the corrected model (SST-NL) was examined. …. for the considered flows SST-NL exceeds both «parents», namely SST and WJ-BSL-EARSM.” Exceeding the previous models indicates the corrected model (SST-NL) is considered ‘valid’ in these regions defined by the simulation space. Matyushenko page 2 section 3 disclose “first part presents results of computations of basic two dimensional turbulence flows including wall-bounded flows and flows with turbulent boundary layer separation.” Turbulent boundary layer separation corresponds with respective layers.
But Matyushenko does not explicitly name a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region; however, in analogous art of RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) estimates, Mani column 11 lines 18-19 teach “the sublayer, buffer, and log layers (y+<l00).” The sublayer corresponds with a viscous layer. The buffer corresponds with a buffer layer. The log layer corresponds with a logarithmic layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matyushenko and Mani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to consider the layers of the boundary into the system of corrected k-ω SST turbulence model for the advantageous purpose of considering “the versatility of the model.” See Mani column 11 line 19.
Dependent claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Matyushenko, A.A. & Garbaruk, A.V. “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model” Int'l Conf. Physics, J Physics, 929 (2017) [herein “Matyushenko”] teaches a non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model which involves primarily a stress tensor and strain rate tensor correction derived from WJ-BSL-EARSM.
US patent 10,366,182 B2 Mani, et al. [herein “Mani”] column 8 lines 1-4 teaches “This finding of examples disclosed herein suggests that the Lai-So model can be tuned to improve (e.g., better) performance with Menter's SST turbulence model.”
Hunsaker, D.F., et al. “Smooth-Wall Boundary Conditions for Dissipation-Based Turbulence Models” 48th AIA A Aerospace Sciences Meeting (2010) [herein “Hunsaker”] page 5 teaches “Boussinesq-based turbulent-energy-transport equation.” Hunsaker page 5 discloses “These wall damping functions are simply empirical corrections that are added to force the model to agree more closely with experimental data.”
Menter, F. “Improved Two-Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows” NASA Technical Memorandum, 103975 (1992) [herein “Menter”] page 2 teaches “All low Reynolds number k-ε models employ damping functions in one form or another in the sublayer.”
Coakley, T.J. “Turbulence Modeling Methods for the Compressible Navier-Stokes Equations” AIA A-83-1693 (1983) teaches extensive technology background of different Navier-Stokes formulations. In particular, Coakley page 3 right column teaches the “Jones-Launder (k-ε) model” including a damping term D.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17:
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose:
a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, and the correction factor is given according to:
ω
H
y
b
'
=
f
b
l
e
n
d
ω
H
y
b
where
ω
H
y
b
'
is the correction factor
f
b
l
e
n
d
is a blending function and
ω
H
y
b
is a viscus layer correction function
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19:
Menter page 2 teaches “All low Reynolds number k-ε models employ damping functions in one form or another in the sublayer.” But Menter fails to teach the specific viscous sublayer correction factor claimed.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose:
a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate, with the viscous sublayer correction factor given according to:
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
=
∂
ω
v
d
∂
y
y
1
2
y
2
2
y
2
+
y
1
2
4
where
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
is the correction factor,
y
1
2
is a cell at location 1 and
y
2
2
is the cell at position 2
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
Menter page 3 third paragraph teaches “the Jones-Launder model was first transformed into a k-ω formulation. The blending between the two regions is performed by a blending function.” But Menter fails to teach determining whether the location is at a buffer layer before applying the blending function.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “determining whether the location is at a buffer layer; and when at the buffer layer, applying a correction that increase the values of energy dissipation rate only at the buffer layer by: applying a blending function that acts on the values of energy dissipation rate at the buffer layer and prevents the blending function to affect values at the viscous layer of the boundary defined in the simulation space” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9542506 B2 Chen; Hudong et al.
teaches
Computer simulation of physical processes including modeling of laminar-to-turbulent transition
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 20 February 2026