Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show fail to show text labels for the numerals in figures 1-4 and 6-7F as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6, 7, and 10 are 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.
The term “including each and every novel feature or combination of features disclosed herein” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “including each and every novel feature or combination of features disclosed herein” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “novel” is a relative term and is indefinite since it is unclear what features this is intending to encompass.
The term “state-of-the-art (SOA)” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “state-of-the-art (SOA)” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “state of the art” is indefinite because it could mean different things to different people.
The term “state-of-the-art (SOA)” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “state-of-the-art (SOA)” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. By using the indefinite term listed above, you render the substance of the “jacket cooling” indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim does not further limit the claim it depends on. The addition of “each and every novel feature or combination of features” does not actually recite further details than what is already recited in claim 1. Claim 1 discloses all features that would reasonably fall or be interpreted as “disclosed herein”. Thus claim 7 does not add any additional features to claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed towards a computationally efficient modeling framework which is not within the statutory categories of invention. The claims are not directed towards a process or method as a clear set of actions forming a process is not recited. The claims are not directed towards a machine since a physical structure or device is not recited. The claims are not directed towards a manufacture since no physical elements or combination of elements is recited, nor are they recited to be joined or combined in a novel way. The claims are not directed towards a composition of matter since no tangible elements are recited in a specific mixture or combination to create a novel element or device.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under the 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-3 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
A method of generating a design of a cooling system for an electric motor according to a cooling system specification, comprising the steps of:
(a) generating a design for an evaporative cooling jacket for the electric motor;
(b) modelling the design by executing the following steps employing a computer program stored on a digital computer including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium:
(i) generating an electromagnetic model of the design for simulating electromagnetic parameters in the electric motor and the cooling system;
(ii) generating a motor heat transfer model of the design for determining heat transfer in the electric motor;
(iii) generating an evaporative heat transfer model for simulating heat transfer in the cooling system due to evaporative cooling;
(iv) generating a contact resistance model of the design to determine contact resistance between a rotor lamination-magnet, a winding-slot liner, a slot liner-stator lamination, and a stator lamination-housing;
(v) generating a thermophysical properties model of the design that incorporates equivalent axial thermal conductivity (kz), density (p), and specific heat (Cp) of lamination material employed in the design;
(c) comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the cooling system specification; and
(d) modifying the design of the cooling system when the results differ from the specification.
The limitations generating a design (one can take observations and then create a design with pen and paper), comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the cooling system specification (one can make observations about models and evaluate differences and similarities in their head or with a pen and paper), and modifying the design of the cooling system when the results differ from the specification (after one does the above “observing” and “comparing”, which can both be done by evaluation and critical thinking in the head, one would be able translate those observations from previous steps into physical design changes using a pen and paper) are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes.
The limitations modelling the design (relies on physics/numerical equations), generating an electromagnetic model of the design for simulating electromagnetic parameters in the electric motor and the cooling system (relies on physics/numerical equations), generating a motor heat transfer model of the design for determining heat transfer in the electric motor (relies on physics/numerical equations), generating an evaporative heat transfer model for simulating heat transfer in the cooling system due to evaporative cooling (relies on physics/numerical equations), generating a contact resistance model of the design to determine contact resistance between a rotor lamination-magnet, a winding-slot liner, a slot liner-stator lamination, and a stator lamination-housing (relies on physics/numerical equations), and generating a thermophysical properties model of the design that incorporates equivalent axial thermal conductivity (kz), density (p), and specific heat (Cp) of lamination material employed in the design (relies on physics/numerical equations) are abstract ideas because they are directed towards mathematical formulas and equations.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present:
A method of generating a design of a cooling system for an electric motor according to a cooling system specification, comprising the steps of: (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
generating a design for an evaporative cooling jacket for the electric motor; (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
modelling the design by executing the following steps employing a computer program stored on a digital computer including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium: (mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(f) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(h) and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 1 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-3 recite limitations that fall under the scope of mathematical relationships. For claim 2, “coupling” is a process that relies on mathematical/physics equations.
The following is an analysis of dependent claim 3 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 3 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
building a motorette test bed according to selected characteristics of the design;
acquiring data regarding thermophysical properties of the motorette test bed while operating the motorette test bed; and
comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the data acquired while operating the motorette test bed.
The limitation comparing results of the electromagnetic mode, the heat transfer mode, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model, and the thermophysical properties model to the data acquired while operating the test bed (one can observe results of model performance, perform evaluation using critical thinking, and also write out the differences using a pen and paper) is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 3 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present:
building a motorette test bed according to selected characteristics of the design (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2105.05(f))
acquiring data regarding thermophysical properties of the motorette test bed while operating the motorette test bed (insignificant exta-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2105.05(g)
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 3 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception or insignificant extra-solution activity are carried over above and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(f) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 3 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 4 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 4-7 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 4 recites the limitations:
A method for analyzing and designing electric motors employing evaporative cooling (EC) for thermal management, comprising the steps of:
(a) determining fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) with a CFD/HT model;
(b) determining a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) with an LPTN model.
The limitations determining fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) with a CDF/HT model (CFD/HT model relies on physics/mathematical equations and premises) and determining a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) with an LPTN model (LPTN model relies on physics/mathematical equations and premises) are abstract ideas because they are directed towards mathematical processes/equations. No supporting instructions are recited beyond “determining” that it represents no more than mere mathematical formulas and equations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 4 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception:
A method for analyzing and designing electric motors employing evaporative cooling (EC) for thermal management, comprising the steps of: (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 4 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 4 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 5-7 recite limitations that fall under mathematical relationships (i. a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981); ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674; iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words)). My above analysis of claim 4 is equally applicable to the claims 5-7.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 8 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 8-10 are directed to a framework.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes or generic computer functions, as the claims cover performance of the limitations of the human mind or a generic computer processor, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
A computationally efficient modeling framework for analysis and design of an electric motor employing an evaporative cooling system for thermal management including, comprising a digital computer system that includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a computer program that embodies the following model:
a computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model programmed on the computer system;
a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model programmed on the computer system, wherein the computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model and the lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model generate an indication of expected performance of the evaporative cooling system during normal operation of the electric motor.
The limitation wherein the computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model and the lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model generate an indication of expected performance of the evaporative cooling system during normal operation of the electric motor (relies on physics/mathematical equations/premises) is an abstract idea because it is directed towards mathematical processes/equations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 8 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception:
A computationally efficient modeling framework for analysis and design of an electric motor employing an evaporative cooling system for thermal management including, comprising a digital computer system that includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a computer program that embodies the following model: (Field of Use and Technological Environment being mere generally linking, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model programmed on the computer system (Field of Use and Technological Environment being mere generally linking, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 8 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as Field of use and Technological Environment being merely generally linking above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, considering the claim limitations in combination as a whole make claim 8 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims 9-10 recite limitations that fall under mathematical relationships (i. a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981); ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674; iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words)). My above analysis of claim 8 is equally applicable to the claims 9-10.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Smith et al., (Evaporative Cooling of High Power Density Motors: Design and Analysis), in view of Couisineau (Experimental Characterization and Modeling of Thermal Contact Resistance of Electric Machine Stator-to-Cooling Jacket Interface Under Interference Fit Loading), Synopsis Fluent (teachings span multiple attached documents, but are being considered as one reference; citations will make clear which document/section is being referenced), Synopsis Motor-CAD, Juchymenko (US20210172344A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith et al. teaches generating a design for an evaporative cooling jacket for the electric motor (In the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects on energy loss as heat generation. Two of the major contributors in permanent magnet synchronous machines include copper losses and iron losses. The copper losses are related to the current supplied to the stator windings, as well as their electrical resistivity [2]; it can therefore be reduced by decreasing the electrical resistance of the windings or decreasing the supplied current. Hairpin windings [3] are a recent advancement in motor winding technology that aim to increase the copper fill factor in the stator slots and reduce winding losses. The second type of loss, iron loss, occurs due to the irreversible nature of magnetization [4]. To minimize iron loss, motor designers build the rotor and stator cores using thin laminations of high-silicon steel which are pressed with dielectric adhesive between the layers. Thinner layers lead to lower iron losses [5], but using thin laminations also increases cost of production. Another type of loss, mechanical losses, may include friction within the air gap, bearing loss, etc. These losses are not significant in most systems when compared to the copper and iron losses. However, depending on the system design, the mechanical losses may have a noticeable effect on the overall efficiency. For instance, if a motor uses a flooded internal cooling system, frictional losses between the coolant and the rotor core can be substantial [6]. While the requirements for electric aviation differ, the motor technology is similar to that for electric automobiles. These electric vehicle motors almost universally utilize the cooling jacket strategy for thermal dissipation, which is depicted in Fig. 1. While the cooling jacket strategy can dissipate large amounts of heat from the motor, the cooling jacket components add weight to the motor which reduce the overall power density of the machine.)
Smith et al. also does not teach generating an electromagnetic model of the design for simulating electromagnetic parameters in the electric motor and the cooling system. He also does not teach generating a motor heat transfer model of the design for determining heat transfer in the electric motor. Smith et al. also does not teach generating an evaporative heat transfer model for simulating heat transfer in the cooling system due to evaporative cooling. He also does not teach generating a contact resistance model of the design to determine contact resistance between a rotor lamination-magnet, a winding-slot liner, a slot liner-stator lamination, and a stator lamination-housing. He also does not teach generating a thermophysical properties model of the design that incorporates equivalent axial thermal conductivity (kz), density (p), and specific heat (Cp) of lamination material employed in the design. He also does not teach comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the cooling system specification. He also does not teach modifying the design of the cooling system when the results differ from the specification.
However, Synopsis Fluent teaches generating an electromagnetic model of the design for simulating electromagnetic parameters in the electric motor and the cooling system (9.1. Electromagnetic Models: The solution of electromagnetic hydrodynamic problems at the continuum level requires the solution of Maxwell’s equations.), and Synopsis Motor-CAD teaches generating a motor heat transfer model of the design for determining heat transfer in the electric motor (Thermal modeling of Electric Motors: Traditionally when designing a new motor, the thermal rating was estimated from prior knowledge of one or more of the following: thermal resistance of winding to ambient (C/W), thermal resistances of winding to stator (C/W) and stator to ambient (C/W), housing heat transfer coefficient (W/m2/C), winding current density limit (A/mm2), specific electric loading (A/m)), and Synopsis Fluent teaches generating an evaporative heat transfer model for simulating heat transfer in the cooling system due to evaporative cooling (14.7.5. Evaporation-Condensation Model: A three-zone flow boiling model has been presented to describe evaporation of elongated bubbles in micro channels. The heat transfer model predicts the transient variation in local heat transfer coefficient during the cyclic passage of (i) a liquid slug, (ii) an evaporating elongated bubble and (iii) a vapor slug. The new model illustrates the importance of the strong cyclic variation in the heat transfer coefficient and the strong dependency of heat transfer on the bubble frequency, the minimum liquid film thickness at dryout and the liquid film formation thickness. Heat transfer in the thin film evaporation region is typically on the order of several times that of the liquid slug while that for the vapor slug is nearly negligible. The relative lengths of the three zones are very important as they influence the time period for each zone to pass the point of observation in each cycle and thus the value of the local time-averaged heat transfer coefficient), and Synopsis Fluent teaches generating a thermophysical properties model of the design that incorporates equivalent axial thermal conductivity (kz), density (p), and specific heat (Cp) of lamination material employed in the design (8.5 Thermal Conductivity: The thermal conductivity must be defined when heat transfer is active. You must define thermal conductivity when you are modeling energy and viscous flow. Ansys Fluent provides several options for definition of the thermal conductivity: constant thermal conductivity, temperature- and/or composition-dependent thermal conductivity, kinetic theory, anisotropic (anisotropic, biaxial, orthotropic, cylindrical orthotropic, principal axes and principal values, user-defined anisotropic) (for solid materials only). Each of these input options and the governing physical models are detailed in this section. User-defined functions (UDFs) are described in the Fluent Customization Manual. In all cases, you will define the Thermal Conductivity in the Create/Edit Materials Dialog Box (Figure 8.22: The Create/Edit Materials Dialog Box).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the design generation of a cooling jacket of Smith et al. (In the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects on energy loss as heat generation) with the model generation for electromagnetic models (9.1. Electromagnetic Models: The solution of electromagnetic hydrodynamic problems at the continuum level requires the solution of Maxwell’s equations), evaporative heat transfer model (14.7.5. Evaporation-Condensation Model: The heat transfer model predicts the transient variation in local heat transfer coefficient during the cyclic passage of (i) a liquid slug, (ii) an evaporating elongated bubble and (iii) a vapor slug.), and thermophysical properties model (8.5 Thermal Conductivity: Ansys Fluent provides several options for definition of the thermal conductivity: constant thermal conductivity, temperature- and/or composition-dependent thermal conductivity, kinetic theory, anisotropic (anisotropic, biaxial, orthotropic, cylindrical orthotropic, principal axes and principal values, user-defined anisotropic) (for solid materials only). Each of these input options and the governing physical models are detailed in this section.) of Synopsis Fluent and the motor heat transfer model (Thermal modeling of Electric Motors: Traditionally when designing a new motor) of Synopsis Motor-CAD, because Synopsis Fluent and Motor-CAD details the process of designing a motor involving modelling the design. “Thermal modeling of Electric Motors: Traditionally when designing a new motor, the thermal rating was estimated from prior knowledge…” and “Each of these input options and the governing physical models are detailed in this section” respectively.
Cousineau teaches generating a contact resistance model of the design to determine contact resistance between a rotor lamination-magnet, a winding-slot liner, a slot liner-stator lamination, and a stator lamination-housing (Introduction, Page 1: Because the machine of interest used a high-performance cooling jacket for heat removal, the heat flow path through the machine was predominantly radial. A parameter sensitivity study was performed on a preliminary design of the electric machine using a thermal finite element analysis model to determine which thermal resistances were most significant. To perform the study, the thermal properties of each material or interface were decreased by 20%, and the change in maximum temperature was reported. The thermal sensitivity analysis indicated that the dominant thermal resistances for heat conduction through the machine were the stator lamination stack and the thermal contact resistance (TCR) between the stator and case [3]. For this reason, there was a need to experimentally measure the in-plane lamination thermal conductivity and the TCR of the stator-to-case interface.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaches of Smith et al. as modified above with the contact resistance model (the thermal contact resistance (TCR) between the stator and case) generation of Cousineau because the above-mentioned modelling techniques that achieve the same outcome separately as they do when combined into a single system system.).
Juchymenko teaches comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the cooling system specification ([0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.) and modifying the design of the cooling system when the results differ from the specification ([0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.).
Once this is achieved, it would be obvious to combine Smith et al. as modified above with Juchymenko’s teaching of comparing model results and making system design changes ([0018 Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., in view of Couisineau, in view of Synopsis Fluent, in view of Synopsis Motor-CAD, in view of Juchymenko in further view of Wu et al. (Heat Transfer and Thermal Management of Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Electric Motor).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Smith et al., Synopsis Fluent, Synopsis Motor-CAD, Cousineau, and Juchymenko above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Wu et al. further discloses the following:
coupling the electromagnetic model and motor heat transfer model to generate a two-way coupled model of the design (Page 1: As the development of Taylor flow between the rotor and stator was inevitable, the development of active or passive rotor cooling schemes was necessary for extending the power density of an electric motor. Unlike the previous thermal circuit or lumped-parameter thermal model that predicted the overall temperatures of motor components, the present coupled electromagnetic and thermal-fluid model can reveal the detailed temperature distributions in an electric motor to probe the local hot spots of each component in order to avoid overheating at the early design stage.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Smith et al. as modified above with Wu et al.’s teaching of model-coupling (Page 1: Unlike the previous thermal circuit or lumped-parameter thermal model that predicted the overall temperatures of motor components, the present coupled electromagnetic and thermal-fluid model can reveal the detailed temperature distributions in an electric motor to probe the local hot spots of each component in order to avoid overheating at the early design stage.) in order to reveal more detailed temperature distributions in the model which would serve as an improvement to the model’s function.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Smith et al., in view of Couisineau, in view of Synopsis Fluent, in view of Synopsis Motor-CAD, in view of Juchymenko, in view of Wu et al., in further view of Frost (IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Thermal Evaluation of Systems of Insulating Materials for Random-Wound AC Electric Machinery).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Smith et al., Synopsis Fluent, Synopsis Motor-CAD, and Juchymenko above discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Juchymenko Further discloses:
acquiring data regarding thermophysical properties of the motorette test bed while operating the motorette test bed ([0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.)
comparing results of the electromagnetic model, the motor heat transfer model, the evaporative heat transfer model, the contact resistance model and the thermophysical properties model to the data acquired while operating the motorette test bed. bed ([0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.)
Frost further discloses:
building a motorette test bed according to selected characteristics of the design; (5.1.3.1 Overview of preparation: This motorette description is based on historic industry-wide testing. As noted in the last sentence of 5.1.2, modifications may be made to more clearly simulate the intended use, provided the control and candidate test specimens are modified in the same manner. The methodology for testing of multiple materials on one motorette specimen has not been standardized and has not been established as part of this standard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the motorette application of Frost to the simulation/modeling comparison of Smith et al. as modified above (Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system) in order to allow the system to provide relative thermal performance of a candidate EIS when compared to that of a reference EIS (Frost, “The standard test procedure for the thermal evaluation and qualification of electrical insulation systems (EISs) for random-wound ac electric machinery, where thermal degradation is the dominating aging factor, is described. The relative thermal performance of a candidate EIS is compared to that of a reference EIS. Insulation systems for such machinery with input voltage of up to 600 V at 50/60 Hz are described in this standard. A statistical method for establishing a relative life-temperature relationship for an insulation system is also described. To have any significance, the reference insulation system must be supported with adequate field service data. Evaluation of insulation systems for use in air-cooled, random-wound ac electric machinery with “usual service conditions” is this procedure’s intent. This procedure, on its own, does not cover insulation systems such as exposure to conducting contaminates, radiation, inverter applications, or operation in oils, refrigerants, or other media that potentially degrades insulating materials.”).
Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Smith et al (Evaporative Cooling of High Power Density Motors: Design and Analysis), in view of Sarlioglu (US 20230369945 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith teaches analyzing and designing electric motors employing evaporative cooling (EC) for thermal management (Page 1, Abstract: This study presents the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype. The design employs a capillary flow-assisted evaporative cooling system, resulting in a lightweight and power-dense architecture suitable for high-performance electric automobiles and electric aviation applications. Introduction: In the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects on energy loss as heat generation) and determining fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) with a CFD/HT model (Page 5, To evaluate the motor cooling system, a computational fluid dynamics / heat transfer (CFD/HT) model was produced, which used the Volume of Fluid (VOF) multiphase method to simulate the evaporation of coolant within the machine.)
Smith does not teach determining a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) with an LPTN model.
However, Sarlioglu teaches determining a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) with an LPTN model. ([0048] The thermal performance of the stator packages having one or more heat exchangers, and/or electric machines employing such stator packages, can be assessed, evaluated, or predicted in any of a variety of manners, and the thermal performance characteristics of any given stator package can vary depending upon any of a variety of parameters. For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation, as can be performed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Alternatively, to eliminate CFD analysis dependency and obtain quicker results, each stator package (or electrical machine) can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the known teachings of Sarlioglu ([0048] to eliminate CFD analysis dependency and obtain quicker results, each stator package (or electrical machine) can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method) to Smith et al. “to eliminate CFD analysis dependency and provide analytical method implementation”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., in view of Sarlioglu, in further view of Synopsis Fluent.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Smith and Sarlioglu above discloses all the limitations of Claim 4.
Sarlioglu in combination with Smith et al. further discloses the following:
modeling EC with a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) modeling framework. (Sarlioglu: [0048] The thermal performance of the stator packages having one or more heat exchangers, and/or electric machines employing such stator packages, can be assessed, evaluated, or predicted in any of a variety of manners, and the thermal performance characteristics of any given stator package can vary depending upon any of a variety of parameters. For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation, as can be performed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Alternatively, to eliminate CFD analysis dependency and obtain quicker results, each stator package (or electrical machine) can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.), (Smith et al.: Abstract: This study presents the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype. The design employs a capillary flow-assisted evaporative cooling system, resulting in a lightweight and power-dense architecture suitable for high-performance electric automobiles and electric aviation applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the LPTN of Sarlioglu ([0048] For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation… can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.) with the energy equation of Synopsis Fluent (14.4.5. Energy Equation: Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer) with the analysis and design of electric motors of Smith et al. (several parameters have significant effects on energy loss as heat generation) in order to account for the energy equation of Synopsis Fluent “Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer” to be used in “thermal simulation… can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN)“ of Sarlioglu to ultimately be used in cooling jacket design of Smith et al. “the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype”.
Synopsis Fluent further discloses the following:
calculating at least one heat absorption term in an energy equation (14.4.5. Energy Equation:
The first three terms on the right-hand side of Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer due to conduction, species diffusion, and viscous dissipation, respectively. The last term includes volumetric heat sources that you have defined but not the heat sources generated by finite-rate volumetric or surface reactions since species formation enthalpy is already included in the total enthalpy calculation as described in Energy Sources Due to Reaction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to the teachings of Synopsis Fluent and combine with the teachings of Smith et al. as modified above (Abstract: This study presents the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype. The design employs a capillary flow-assisted evaporative cooling system, resulting in a lightweight and power-dense architecture suitable for high-performance electric automobiles and electric aviation applications.) because the equations of Synopsis Fluent provide a functional implementation integrated into a commercial software tool found in Sarlioglu.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., in view of Sarlioglu, in view of Wu et al., in further view of Juchymenko.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of the combination of Smith et al. and Sarlioglu above discloses all the limitations of Claim 4. Wu et al. further discloses:
assessing the electrothermal performance of the EC under steady state and transient conditions with an electromagnetic (EM) - LPTN model (1. Introduction: Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model, the present numerical scheme is proposed to predict the detailed temperature distributions in each component of an electric motor for the subsequent applications.) and applying an EM-CFD/HT model (1. Introduction: Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model, the present numerical scheme is proposed to predict the detailed temperature distributions in each component of an electric motor for the subsequent applications.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the LPTN and EM-CFD/HT model (Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model) of Wu et al. with Smith et al. teaching “in the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects…” with Sarlioglu’s teachings of an LPTN ([0048]: For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation… can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.) to better assess and analyze cooling jackets of Smith et al. “While the cooling jacket strategy can dissipate large amounts of heat from the motor, the cooling jacket components add weight to the motor which reduce the overall power density of the machine”.
Juchymenko further discloses:
utilizing the EM-CFD/HT model and the EM-LPTN model to characterize and compare the performance of EC with the state-of-the-art (SOA) jacket cooling (JC). (Juchymenko: [0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the EC system in place of the components/equipment of Juchymenko ([0018] components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system.) with Smith et al. teaching “in the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects…” with Sarlioglu’s teachings of an LPTN ([0048]: For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation… can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.) to better assess and analyze cooling jackets of Smith et al. “While the cooling jacket strategy can dissipate large amounts of heat from the motor, the cooling jacket components add weight to the motor which reduce the overall power density of the machine” as compared to electric motors.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., in view of Sarlioglu.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Smith et al. and Sarlioglu above discloses all the limitations of Claim 4. See in addition the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (Mathematical and computational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen production: A review), in view of Wu et al.
Regarding Claim 8, Ahmed et al. teaches a computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model programmed on the computer system (4.2. Computational fluid dynamics simulation models:
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is the science of predicting fluid flow, heat transfer, chemical reaction and other related phenomena by solving numerical set of the governing mathematical equations which are mostly based on conservation equations i.e., mass, heat and momentum. However, due to the complexity of the gasification process i.e., involving many phases and various chemical and physical interactions among them not much works are available concerning development of mathematical CFD model to be used for simulation purposes. Generally, results of CFD analysis are relevant for conceptual studies of new design, detail product development, troubleshooting and redesign. Besides, CFD modeling also is cost saving, timely, safe and easy to scale-up [112].)
Ahmed et al. does not teach a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model programmed on the computer system, wherein the computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model and the lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model generate an indication of expected performance of the evaporative cooling system during normal operation of the electric motor.
However, Wu et al. does teach a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model programmed on the computer system, wherein the computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer (CFD/HT) model and the lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model generate an indication of expected performance of the evaporative cooling system during normal operation of the electric motor. (Page 3: Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model, the present numerical scheme is proposed to predict the detailed temperature distributions in each component of an electric motor for the subsequent applications.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the CFD/HT model of Ahmed et al. (4.2.: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is the science of predicting fluid flow, heat transfer… CFD modeling also is cost saving, timely, safe and easy to scale-up) with the LPTN model predictions of Wu et al. (Page 1: lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model) because the CFD modeling is cost saving as cited above, and the model predictions of Wu procide a “realistic” model for enabling implementation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al., in view of Wu et al., in view of Synopsis Fluent, in view of Smith et al., in further view of Sarlioglu.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ahmed et al. and Wu et al. disclose all the limitations of Claim 8. Synopsis Fluent further discloses a heat absorption term in the energy equation (14.4.5 Energy Equation: The first three terms on the right-hand side of Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer due to conduction, species diffusion, and viscous dissipation, respectively. The last term includes volumetric heat sources that you have defined but not the heat sources generated by finite-rate volumetric or surface reactions since species formation enthalpy is already included in the total enthalpy calculation as described in Energy Sources Due to Reaction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the heat absorption term of Synopsis Fluent (14.4.5 Energy Equation: The first three terms on the right-hand side of Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer) with the heat transfer of Ahmed “predicting heat transfer… solving numerical set of the governing mathematical equations which are mostly based on conservation equations i.e., mass, heat and momentum” with the teachings of Wu et al. “Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model” for analysis and design related purposes as described by Ahmed “results of CFD analysis are relevant for conceptual studies of new design, detail product development, troubleshooting and redesign”. Combining the equations of Synopsis Fluent with Wu et al. and Ahmed et al. enables one to do so.
Smith et al. combined with Sarlioglu further discloses a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) modeling framework that models EC. (Sarlioglu: [0048] The thermal performance of the stator packages having one or more heat exchangers, and/or electric machines employing such stator packages, can be assessed, evaluated, or predicted in any of a variety of manners, and the thermal performance characteristics of any given stator package can vary depending upon any of a variety of parameters. For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation, as can be performed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Alternatively, to eliminate CFD analysis dependency and obtain quicker results, each stator package (or electrical machine) can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.), (Smith et al.: Abstract: This study presents the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype. The design employs a capillary flow-assisted evaporative cooling system, resulting in a lightweight and power-dense architecture suitable for high-performance electric automobiles and electric aviation applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the electric cooling modeling of Sarlioglu and Smith et al. (Sarlioglu, [0048]: package (or electrical machine) can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method | Smith et al., Abstract: This study presents the design and thermal analysis of a 25kW high-power-density electric motor prototype. The design employs a capillary flow-assisted evaporative cooling system, resulting in a lightweight and power-dense architecture suitable for high-performance electric automobiles and electric aviation applications) with the heat transfer of Ahmed “predicting heat transfer… solving numerical set of the governing mathematical equations which are mostly based on conservation equations i.e., mass, heat and momentum” with the LPTN of Wu et al. “Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model” for analysis and design related purposes as described by Ahmed “results of CFD analysis are relevant for conceptual studies of new design, detail product development, troubleshooting and redesign” since the LPTN model and EC as concepts rely on energy transfer theory and mathematical concepts “(LPTN) as an analytical method “ and “Equation 14–125 represent energy transfer” respectively .
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ahmed et al., in view of Wu et al., in view of Synopsis Fluent, in view of Smith et al., in view of Sarlioglu, in further view of Juchymenko.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ahmed et al., Wu et al., Synopsis Fluent, Smith et al. and Sargioglu disclose all the limitations of Claim 9.
Wu et al. further discloses:
an electromagnetic (EM) - LPTN model that assesses the electrothermal performance of the EC under steady state and transient conditions (1. Introduction: Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model to the realistic convection–conduction thermal model, the present numerical scheme is proposed to predict the detailed temperature distributions in each component of an electric motor for the subsequent applications.) Juchymenko further discloses:
an EM-CFD/HT model, wherein the EM-CFD/HT model and the EM-LPTN model are utilized to characterize and compare the performance of EC with the state-of-the- art (SOA) jacket cooling (JC). ( [0018] In a suitable embodiment, the control module includes a processor for processing data received from the monitoring module to determine the operating conditions within the ORC, the physical state of the various fluids and/or propellant, components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system. Comparisons may be made to previously simulated performance data in order to determine appropriate adjustments to the system. The control module may adjust at least one of: the heat transfer from the engine to the ORC propellant; the heat removed by the condenser; the flow rate of engine exhaust; the flow rate of engine water/glycol; the flow rate of thermal fluids; the flow rate of ORC organic propellant; propellant temperature; and propellant pressure within the system in response to said data processing.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the EC system in place of the components/equipment of Juchymenko ([0018] components/equipment and the ambient air temperature at monitored locations within the system.) with Ahmed’s heat transfer “predicting heat transfer… solving numerical set of the governing mathematical equations which are mostly based on conservation equations i.e., mass, heat and momentum” with the LPTN and EM-CFD/HT model (Within the scope of electromagnetic-thermal coupled analysis but converting the lumped-parameter thermal model) of Wu et al. with Smith et al. teaching “in the design of electric motors, several parameters have significant effects…” with Sarlioglu’s teachings of an LPTN ([0048]: For example, such thermal performance can be evaluated by thermal simulation… can be modeled using a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) as an analytical method.) to better assess and analyze cooling jackets of Smith et al. “While the cooling jacket strategy can dissipate large amounts of heat from the motor, the cooling jacket components add weight to the motor which reduce the overall power density of the machine” as compared to electric motors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm) ET.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)272-3676. 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.
/HAYDEN JAMES DANSEREAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights