DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 18 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 18 are rejected. 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. Drawings Objections The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 1170 ” has been used to designate both Display and Display Interface . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 1172 ” has been used to designate both Keyboard and Communication Ports . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 1176 in FIG. 11C is not disclosed in the specification . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification Objection The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0033], line 20 recites “volume 102. . Mathematically. It is recommended the phrase removes one of the periods. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, lines 1 - 2 recites “medium of claim 3 the positions of the flame”, but it is recommended the phrase recites “medium of claim 3, wherein the positions of the flame”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 6 - 10, and 1 5 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (“Improved Combustion Submodels for Modelling Gasoline Engines with the Level Set G Equation and Detailed Chemical Kinetics”) , hereinafter “Yang”. As per claim 1, Yang discloses : a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing executable instructions which when executed by a data processing system cause the data processing system to (Yang, page 708, left column, lines 6 - 15 through right column, lines 1 - 2 discloses FIGS. 5 and 6, in which flame propagation is performed, along with a grid and corresponding residual gas distribution, interpreted to be performed on a computer with at least one type of processor and at least one form of memory.) establish a computational grid that represents a volume containing a combustible fluid mixture, the computational grid including a plurality of computational cells (Yang, page 708, left column, lines 13 - 15 through right column, line 1 discloses a mesh with instantaneous residual mass fraction distribution, with FIG. 6 on page 709 showing the mass fraction is in reference to residual gas distribution.) identify positions in the computational grid of a flame front propagating through the combustible fluid mixture (Yang, page 707, right column, ln 15 - 18 through page 708, left column, ln 1 - 7 discloses the flame front propagation and local residual gas mass fraction distribution, with FIG. 8 discloses the region in which the flame front is located on a grid.) identify, using a flame propagation model, a set of representative computational cells that contain a computational representation of the flame front (Yang, page 712, left column, lines 12 - 15 discloses flame propagation using a G-equation for calculating combustion in a cell, with FIGS. 8 and 11 showing cells in a region with the flame front.) apply a sub-grid well-mixed-reactor model to the flame-front volume inside every computational cell within the set of representative computational cells to compute chemical results from combustion of the fluid mixture in the flame front (Yang, page 715, left column, lines 39 - 40 through page 715, right column, lines 1 - 6 discloses using a well-stirred reactor to model a flame front of each computational cell, and used to calculate chemistry source terms and the transport of energy in equation form, and to model ignition combustion.) As per claim 10, Yang discloses : a computer-implemented method comprising establishing a computational grid that represents a volume containing a combustible fluid mixture, the computational grid including a plurality of computational cells (Yang, page 708, left column, lines 13 - 15 through right column, line 1 discloses a mesh with instantaneous residual mass fraction distribution, with FIG. 6 on page 709 showing the mass fraction is in reference to residual gas distribution.) identifying positions in the computational grid of a flame front propagating through the combustible fluid mixture (Yang, page 707, right column, ln 15 - 18 through page 708, left column, ln 1 - 7 discloses the flame front propagation and local residual gas mass fraction distribution, with FIG. 8 discloses the region in which the flame front is located on a grid.) identifying, using a flame propagation model, a set of representative computational cells that contain a computational representation of the flame front (Yang, page 712, left column, lines 12 - 15 discloses flame propagation using a G-equation for calculating combustion in a cell, with FIGS. 8 and 11 showing cells in a region with the flame front.) applying a sub-grid well-mixed-reactor model to the flame- front volume inside every computational cell within the set of representative computational cells to compute chemical results from combustion of the combustible fluid mixture in the flame front (Yang, page 715, left column, lines 39 - 40 through page 715, right column, lines 1 - 6 discloses using a well-stirred reactor to model a flame front of each computational cell, and used to calculate chemistry source terms and the transport of energy in equation form, and to model ignition combustion.) For claim 6 : The prior art of Yang discloses claim 6: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1 wherein the representative computational cells are a set of computational cells all of which have any part of the flame front within them (Yang, page 709, right column, lines 34 - 37 discloses a computational flow region with a propagating flame, as shown in FIG. 8, disclosing a portion of the cells of the grid with the flame front flowing.) For claim 7 : The prior art of Yang discloses claim 7: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6 wherein the computational cells that have any part of the flame front within them include computational cells that are intersected by a leading edge of the flame front, a trailing edge of the flame front, or both the leading and trailing edges of the flame front (Yang, page 709, right column, lines 34 - 37 discloses a computational flow region in FIG. 8, showing cells being crossed by the face of the flame front, and cells being crossed by the tail of the flame front.) For claim 8 : The prior art of Yang discloses claim 8: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 7 wherein the representative computational cells further include computational cells ahead of and not intersected by the leading edge of the flame front, computational cells behind and not intersected by the trailing edge of the flame front, or both (Yang, page 709, right column, lines 34 - 37 discloses a computational flow region in FIG. 8, showing cells labeled as burned, which have had the flame front passing through, and cells that have yet to be crossed by the flame front labeled as unburned.) For claim 9 : The prior art of Yang discloses claim 9: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 7 wherein the computational cells that have any part of the flame front within them include computational cells that are entirely within the flame front (Yang, page 712, right column, lines 19 - 23 through page 713, left column, line 1 discloses the flame of the flame front moving through cells representing unburned gas regions, with FIG. 12 showing a sub-grid with a plurality of cells within the flame front, in between the unburned and burned sections of the grid.) As per claims 15 - 18 , note the rejections of claims 6 - 9 above. The instant claims 15 - 18 recite substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claims 6 - 9 , and are therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings. 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. 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. Claim s 2 - 5 and 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (“Improved Combustion Submodels for Modelling Gasoline Engines with the Level Set G Equation and Detailed Chemical Kinetics”) , and further in view of Perini et al. (“An Efficient Level-Set Flame Propagation Model for Hybrid Unstructured Grids Using the G-Equation”) , hereinafter “Perini”. As per claim 2, the prior art of Yang discloses the medium of claim 1. The prior art of Yang does not expressly disclose: wherein the executable instructions further include instructions to compute fluid dynamic characteristics within the volume using a flow solver. Perini however discloses : wherein the executable instructions further include instructions to compute fluid dynamic characteristics within the volume using a flow solver (Perini, Abstract, lines 3 - 4 discloses a solver, for computational fluid dynamics, called KIVA4-MHI CFD solver.) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the well-stirred reactor, G-Equation, flame front propagation regarding modeling internal combustible engine teaching of Yang with the solver for computational fluid domain, G-Equation, flame front and flame propagation model for a combustible engine teaching of Perini. The motivation to do so would have been because Perini discloses the benefit of a proposed flame tracking model with the potential for a wide range of applicability due to usage of direct chemical kinetics calculations, which provides greater accuracy than tabulated or fitted-single-equation models (Perini, page 1423, left column, lines 13 - 16). For claim 3 : The combination of Yang and Perini discloses claim 3 ; The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2 wherein the well-mixed reactor model is integrated with the flow solver (Perini, page 1412, right column, lines 1 - 8 discloses a well-stirred reactor representing computation of rates of changes for mass fractions based on chemical reactions, associated with equation 11, and FIG. 3 discloses a graph with additional information indicating a solver associated with well stirred reactor computations.) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the well-stirred reactor, G-Equation, flame front propagation regarding modeling internal combustible engine teaching of Yang with the solver for computational fluid domain, along with G-Equation, flame front and flame propagation model for a combustible engine teaching of Perini. The motivation to do so would have been because Perini discloses the benefit of a proposed flame tracking model with the potential for a wide range of applicability due to usage of direct chemical kinetics calculations, which provides greater accuracy than tabulated or fitted-single-equation models (Perini, page 1423, left column, lines 13 - 16). For claim 4 : The combination of Yang and Perini discloses claim 4 : The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3 wherein the G-equation model is integrated with the well-mixed reactor model (Perini, page 1412, left column, lines 34 - 36 discloses using SpeedCHEM coupled with G-Equation solver, and page 1413, left column, FIG. 3 discloses a graph with additional information indicating the SpeedChem solver associated with well stirred reactor computations.) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the well-stirred reactor, G-Equation, flame front propagation regarding modeling internal combustible engine teaching of Yang with the G-Equation, flame front and flame propagation model for a combustible engine teaching of Perini, and the additional teaching of the solver, well-stirred reactor and G-equation associated with each other, also found in Perini. The motivation to do so would have been because Perini discloses the benefit of a proposed flame tracking model with the potential for a wide range of applicability due to usage of direct chemical kinetics calculations, which provides greater accuracy than tabulated or fitted-single-equation models (Perini, page 1423, left column, lines 13 - 16). For claim 5 : The combination of Yang and Perini discloses claim 5 : The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3 the positions of the flame front in the computational grid are identified using the G- equation model (Perini, page 1413, right column, lines 19 - 25 discloses nodes of cells containing the flame front identified and solved by the G-Equation.) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the well-stirred reactor, G-Equation, flame front propagation regarding modeling internal combustible engine teaching of Yang with the G-Equation, flame front and flame propagation model for a combustible engine teaching of Perini. The motivation to do so would have been because Perini discloses the benefit of a proposed flame tracking model with the potential for a wide range of applicability due to usage of direct chemical kinetics calculations, which provides greater accuracy than tabulated or fitted-single-equation models (Perini, page 1423, left column, lines 13 - 16). As per claims 11 - 14 , note the rejections of claims 2 - 5 above. The instant claims 11 - 14 recite substantially the same limitations as the above rejected claims 2 - 5 , and are therefore rejected under the same prior art teachings. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7089 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Renee Chavez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /Cedric Johnson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 March 20, 2026