DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to communications on 09/24/2025
Claims 1-6, 13, 18, and 20 amended
Claims 21-24 newly presented
Claims 14-17 canceled
Claims 1-13, 18-24 presented for examination
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Response to Claim Objections
Applicant argues previous objections to claims 1-5, 13-17, and 20 are rendered moot by amendments to the claims. Examiner withdraws previous claim objections.
101 Response to Arguments
Applicant argues previous 101 rejection to claims 1-20 are rendered moot by amendments to the claims. Applicant does not discuss how specific amendments overcome the 101 rejection set forth in the prior non-final office action. Argument by applicant is not persuasive to overcome the previous 101 rejection, Examiner will outline below how the amendments relate to the previously rejected claim and why the amendments do not overcome the prior rejection. Please see also under section 101 for the more detailed rejection as a whole.
Amended Independent claims 1, 13, and 20: Amended claims 1, 13, 20 recite similar limitations, and are therefore grouped together in analysis.
Regarding the amendments, the applicant removes the following limitations:
“the request including data indicating one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation;”
This limitation was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity by the examiner, and thus removing it from the claim does not impact patentability under 101.
“selecting, based on the requested output, and based on the one or more input parameters for the simulation, (i) a simulation mode including a resolution and scale of the simulation and (ii) one of the multiple different model configurations;”
This claim limitation was found to recite an abstract idea in the previous nonfinal office action. The original claim did not recite other abstract ideas in the claim limitations. However, applicant amendment added additional claims which contain judicial exceptions shown below.
The applicant added limitations: “determining a particular model configuration of the multiple different model configurations for use in the electrical grid simulation”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation pertains to a determination, which but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Therefore this claim limitation recites the addition of an abstract idea, and the claim is further to be considered under 101 analysis.
“determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, the particular simulation mode including a particular simulation resolution and a particular simulation scale,”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation pertains to a determination, which but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Therefore this claim limitation recites the addition of an abstract idea.
“wherein: the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion”.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation pertains to the determinations performed above and are a prediction about the result of the determination of the model configuration and simulation mode, which but for the recitation of generic computing components, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Therefore this claim limitation recites the addition of an abstract idea.
Applicant also modified the limitation
“executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode
This limitation seems to contain the same scope as the original claim limitation, which under broadest reasonable interpretation was interpreted to be mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Amended Dependent claims 2-5: Amended claims 2-5 contain similar amendments, and the explanation will be combined for the sake of brevity. The claims add the limitation “particular simulation” and “electric grid simulation”.
The simulation being a particular simulation refers back to the new language established in the amended claim 1 which was found to contain an abstract idea. The original claims 2-5 were found to be further elaborations of the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, where now instead of the selecting step, they refer to the determination step. Therefore this amended limitation is considered a mental process.
The recitation of “electric grid” simply applies this simulation to the field of an electric grids. This as stated in 2106.05(h) is Field of Use limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Amended Dependent claim 6, 18: Amended claims 6 and 18 recite similar limitations, so the explanation will be combined for the sake of brevity. The claims recite “request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising
As outlined, this claim limitation does not change the scope of the originally filed claim, and is therefore still considered a recitation of extra solution data gathering activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
In conclusion, applicant argument that amendments render the previous rejection moot have been considered to not be persuasive. The original 101 rejection for the original and amended claims has been maintained by the examiner.
Response to 103 Amendment
Applicant argues that cited references of Enenkel et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0006141 in view of Non-Patent Literature Mahood et al.," A hierarchical multi-resolution agent-based modeling and simulation framework for household electricity demand profile," and Non-Patent Literature Gong et al., "Study on the Data Synchronization Mechanism of Dispatcher Training Simulator." Do not teach the newly amended features of claim 1. Applicant argues that the prior art of Mahmood teaches selecting a time resolution by a user, does not make obvious a “computer implemented method” that “determines a particular simulation mode” where the simulation mode includes a simulation resolution and scale as recited in the amended claim. Applicant argues that the cited portion of the remaining references also do not remedy the deficiency in Mahmood. Applicants’ argument have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated in the MPEP section 2111, “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determines a particular simulation mode” encompasses a determination done by a user of the computer system. The MPEP 2145 states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” There is nothing in the claims that disavows the user of a system making this determination. Furthermore, the previous rejection prior to amendment pertained to a “selection” step. Examiner notes that in order to select a simulation mode, one necessarily determines the simulation mode they would like to select. The examiner does not believe that changing the “selection” to a “determination” prevents the determination from being performed by a user under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specifications. Therefore, the limitation of “determining a particular simulation mode” does not overcome the prior art of Mahmood despite the prior art of Mahmood pertaining to a selection rather than a determination, and the original rejection is maintained.
Regarding the limitation that the simulation mode encompasses a simulation resolution and scale, the prior art of Mahmood teaches this limitation, see the previous mapping which references a “multi-scale multi resolution implementation” which makes obvious that the implementation of the simulation includes at least a determination of the current scale and resolution used. See also the same reference mapping to page 7 par 7 “The emergence of all the households in use, their electrical appliances and their combination with the exogenous variables like weather, seasons, and sociological factors provide estimations for the energy consumption of a typical urban neighborhood at a selected time resolution,(Examiner note: determining a resolution) ranging from minutes to years. The proposed framework generates the load curve for a given number of houses on a 24-hour scale, for a period of a year (Examiner note: determining a scale), so that the seasonal variations can also be taken into account.” As stated previously, The MPEP section 2111 states, “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." And MPEP 2145 states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” The broadest interpretation of a scale of simulation reasonably encompasses a “given number of houses on a 24-hour scale, for a period of a year”, and The broadest interpretation of a resolution of simulation includes a “a selected time resolution.” It is also understood by one reasonably skilled in the art as mapping previously, that “multi-scale, multiresolution implementation." Implies at least a determination of the current scale and resolution used. “Therefore the applicant argument that Mahmood does not teach a scale and resolution was found to be non-persuasive, and the examiner maintains the original rejection.
Applicant also argues that prior art of Mahmood does not teach the newly amended features of “generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion.” Applicant argues that the cited portion of the remaining references also do not remedy the deficiency in Mahmood. As stated previously, The MPEP section 2111 states, “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." And MPEP 2145 states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Furthermore, as also stated in MPEP 2145 “One cannot show no obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, it is not necessary that Mahmood teach the newly amended feature as long as the other references teach it in combination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion” is placing a condition on the output of the simulation based on the determined scale and resolution, so that it satisfies some criteria while also providing the proper output. The specifications give examples of such criteria, including par 86: “Thus, the simulation engine 120 can select an appropriate spatial scale and spatial resolution in order to obtain results without exceeding limits or thresholds related to the amount of generated data.”
Therefore, the Examiner finds the argument that the cited section of the prior art Mahmood alone does not teach the new amended limitation to be persuasive. However, the examiner finds the argument that The cited portions of the remaining references fail remedy the deficiencies of Mahmood in these regards as not being persuasive. That is because the limitation “satisfies at least one output criterion” is claimed in a broad manner, and it is interpreted that the “conditions” of Enenkel read on the claim. While the newly added claims introduce some limitations to the “output criterion,” these limitations are not read into claim 1. As the scope of claim 1 has been changed to include output criterion, new citations from the same or different references will be introduced to reject the claim.
Applicant argues that the above arguments for the amendment of claim 1 also apply to independent claims 13 and 20 as they recite similar features. Examiner finds this argument persuasive as claims 1, 13, and 20 are effective duplicates except for the preamble of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21: The method of claim 1, wherein the request does not specify a simulation mode or a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation.
The MPEP 2173.05(i) discusses the use of negative limitations in claim language. The examiner believes that this limitation runs contrary to the specifications, where this negative limitation does not have basis in the original disclosure “any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.” The disclosure does not recite a benefit or example where a user of the invention does not specify at least a mode or configuration for use in electronic grid simulation where the simulator determines a mode or configuration based on inputs.
See par 43 – 45: “For example, in stage (A) of FIG. 1, the system 100 displays an input user interface 106 to the user through the user device 102. The input user interface 106 can include an input form to enable a user to input a simulation request 108. The input user interface 106 includes input fields for various data. For example, the input user interface 106 includes an input field for a location, a change, a scenario, a data source, and requested output. In some examples, the user interface 106 can include more or fewer input fields. The user interface 106 can include input fields in various formats. For example, the user interface 106 can include input fields with drop-down menus, slider icons, text input fields, maps, selectable icons, search fields, etc. In some examples, the input location can include a center location for the simulation, e.g., a street address or latitude and longitude. The location can also include a radius for the simulation, e.g., in kilometers. (Examiner note: this is as defined by the specification is a “simulation mode” pertaining to a spatial scale of simulation, see par 16-18) In some examples, the location can include a zip code, town, city, or county. In some examples, the location can be input by the user through an interface that displays a map. For example, the user can select regions of a map for the simulation. In some examples, the user can draw boundaries for the simulation on a map.” As shown and outlined under broadest reasonable interpretation, determining a region and radius for the simulation as an input is the same as a request to specify a simulation mode.
See also par 47: “In another example scenario, the system may receive a request for simulation
results showing recommended actions to address a 2MW power deficiency on an electrical grid feeder. In this example, the input location can be the location of the electrical grid feeder. The input change can be an increase in power output of 2MW. The input scenario can be normal operation over the course of a year. “ As shown and outlined broadest reasonable interpretation, this input scenario is the same as determining a temporal scale for the simulation which is a request to specify a simulation mode.
See also par 60: “In some examples, the future versions of the electrical grid model 115 can vary
according to dates along a timeline. For example, a user may be able to specify a future date, e.g., of May 6, 2028, for running a simulation. The simulation can then be performed on a future version of the electrical power grid that corresponds to the date of May 6, 2028, including any expected modifications, additions, deletions, replacements, and degradation as of that date.” Where as defined by the specifications, the future version of the electrical grid is an example of a time-varying model configuration, see par 22 “In some implementations, the multiple different model configurations include time- varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid. In some implementations, the time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid including historical versions, current versions, and future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.” As shown broadest reasonable interpretation, specifying a future date for simulation in a request is the same as requesting a future version configuration.
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
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within
the four statutory categories of the patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12, and 21-24 are directed towards a process
Claims 13, and 18-19 are directed to a machine
Claim 20 is directed to articles of manufacture.
Claims 14-17 have been canceled.
Thus claims 1-13 and 18-24 fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial Exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an
abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
The following claim limitations in bold have been identified as reciting abstract ideas, particularly mental
processes and mathematical concepts. The non-bold limitations have been identified as additional
elements and will be discussed in later sections.
Independent Claims (Step 2A Prong 1):
Claim 1 :
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
determining a particular model configuration of the multiple different model configurations for use in the electrical grid simulation;
determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, the particular simulation mode including a particular simulation resolution and a particular simulation scale,
wherein:the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 13:A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
determining a particular model configuration of the multiple different model configurations for use in the electrical grid simulation;
determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, the particular simulation mode including a particular simulation resolution and a particular simulation scale,
wherein: the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode ;
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 20:A non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
determining a particular model configuration of the multiple different model configurations for use in the electrical grid simulation;
determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, the particular simulation mode including a particular simulation resolution and a particular simulation scale,
wherein: the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Because the limitations within independent claims 1, 13, and 20 largely mirror each other, the
limitations are analyzed once for brevity.
The limitation “determining a particular model configuration of the multiple different model configurations for use in the electrical grid simulation;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the
recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind. Making a determination of the model configuration to be used among multiple different model configurations is akin to an evaluation of the different model configurations and a judgement of which one is preferred given relevant information. For example, in par 22 of the specifications, “In some implementations, the multiple different model configurations include time- varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid. In some implementations, the time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid including historical versions, current versions, and future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid. “This determination of choosing between “historic, current or future version” is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested, and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, the particular simulation mode including a particular simulation resolution and a particular simulation scale, ;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Making a determination of the simulation resolution and scale to use is akin to an evaluation of the different possible resolutions and scales to use, and a judgement of which is preferred given relevant information. For example in par 78 a selection of a scale is simply how long you would like the simulation to be performed. “In some examples, a time scale can include a number of milliseconds, seconds, hours, days, years, etc. In some examples, a simulation can include a transient simulation with a shorter time scale when issues are expected to arise in that time domain, while leaving simulation in the steady-state time domain with a larger time scale when transient effects are not expected. “ A selection for the resolution is how grainular the data should be, see par 79: “The simulation mode 118 can include various time resolutions. The time resolution indicates a level of detail of a simulation in a time dimension.” This determination of choosing the scale and resolution of the simulation to be ran, is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
wherein: the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion; as drafted, this limitation is merely a further elaboration of the previous “determination” steps. This limitation specifies that the choices made in the “determination step” satisfies some output criterion. A person reasonably skilled in the field when making determinations of configurations and simulation mode has in their mind some output criteria he would like to be satisfied/maintained. Therefore, this is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Integration Into A Practical Application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step
2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether additional elements exist within the claim such that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Independent Claims (Step 2A Prong 2):
The following claim limitations have been identified as additional elements within the
independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
Claim 1 :
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 13:A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode ;
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 20:A non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode and
based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
With regard to the preamble of Claim 1, "A computer-implemented method comprising", this
limitation is an additional element that merely recites generic computing components and functions
being used as tools to implement the judicial exception. Therefore, this additional element is considered
Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) which does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
With regard to the preamble of Claim 13, "A system comprising one or more computers and
one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by
the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising",
this limitation is an additional element that merely recites generic computing components and functions
being used as tools to implement the judicial exception. Therefore, this additional element is considered
Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) which does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
With regard to the preamble of Claim 20, "A non-transitory computer storage medium
encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more
computers to perform operations comprising", this limitation is an additional element that merely
recites generic computing components and functions being used as tools to implement the judicial
exception. Therefore, this additional element is considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
(MPEP 2106.0S(f)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 20, the limitations receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation; in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations; based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation. are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.0S(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Further, the following additional element executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is mere instruction to apply an
exception (see MPEP § 2106.0S(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical
application.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is
directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded
that claims 1, 13, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the
judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a
practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further
analysis under Step 2B.
Within the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, specific claim limitations were identified as additional
elements. This section will analyze these previously identified additional elements with regard to the
Significantly More analysis.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(11): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim
from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed
in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant
Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -
understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(11).
Independent Claims (Step 2B):
The claim limitations previously identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP
2106.05(g)) within the independent limitations are:
Claim 1 :
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 13:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 20:
receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;
in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations;
based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation.
Regarding the limitation receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation; this
element is identified as mere data inputting. The request is user-sent input data that includes
parameters for the electrical grid.
Regarding the limitation in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid, the virtual model including multiple different model configurations; this element is
identified as mere data gathering. By broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is accessing a
preexisting virtual model and thus gathering data.
Regarding the limitation "based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the
requested output of the electrical grid simulation” this element is identified as mere data outputting.
As defined in the specification at Paragraph 0102, the output "can include time-varying electrical power grid characteristics at different locations of the electrical power grid for the simulated time period."
The additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of
use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are Well-
Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the
following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are
claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution
activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network" .. iii. Electronic recordkeeping).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework,
claims 1, 13, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims (Step 2A Prong 1):
With regard to the dependent claims, these limitations have been analyzed both individually
and as part of the ordered combination. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the limitations within the
dependent claims did not appear to substantially change the functionality of the invention as a whole
beyond what has already been discussed. The dependent limitations incorporate the deficiencies of
their respective independent claims. For sake of brevity, the discussion of the ordered combination in
view of the dependent limitations has not been restated.
The following claim limitations in bold have been identified as reciting abstract ideas, particularly mental
processes and mathematical concepts. The non-bold limitations have been identified as additional
elements and will be discussed in later sections.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a time resolution of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a spatial resolution of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a time scale of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a spatial scale of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the multiple different model configurations include time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.
Claim 8: The method of claim 7, wherein the time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid including historical versions, current versions, and future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.
Claim 9: The method of claim 8, wherein the current versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid include an as-designed version, an as-built version, and an operational version of the virtual model of the electrical grid.
Claim 10: The method of claim 8, wherein the future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid each comprise: a model of current real-world power grid assets; and a model of one or more planned changes to the electrical grid.
Claim 19: The system of claim 13, wherein the multiple different model configurations include time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.
Claim 22: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum amount of data to be generated by the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 23: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum processing time of the electrical grid simulation.
Claim 24: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation comprises:selecting a higher simulation resolution and a smaller simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of greater transience; and selecting a lower simulation resolution and a larger simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of lesser transience.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “, wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a time resolution of the electrical grid simulation. “ is merely a further elaboration of the 'determination' from the determining step of claim 1, which is a mental process. Thus, this limitation is also
considered a mental process.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a spatial resolution of the electrical grid simulation. “ is merely a further elaboration of the 'determination' from the determining step of claim 1, which is a mental process. Thus, this limitation is also
considered a mental process.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a time scale of the electrical grid simulation.” is merely a further elaboration of the 'scale' from the determining step of claim 1 which is a mental process. Thus, this limitation is also considered a mental process.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a spatial scale of the electrical grid simulation.” is merely a further elaboration of the 'scale' from the determining step of claim 1 which is a mental process. Thus, this limitation is also considered a mental process.
Regarding claim 7 and 19, the limitation “wherein the multiple different model configurations include time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.” describes one of the multiple
different model configurations that can be selected, as such it is directed towards mental process. Due
to being a further elaboration on what choices there are to pick for model configurations which the
process of selecting was considered a mental process; this limitation is also a mental process by
extension.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid including historical versions, current versions, and future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid.” further describes the time-varying versions of the model configuration
described in Claim 7. Therefore, being a further elaboration on the selection of model configurations
which is part of a mental process, this limitation is also by extension a mental process.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the current versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid include an as-designed version, an as-built version, and an operational version of the virtual model of the electrical grid.” further describes current versions of the virtual model as described
in Claim 8. Therefore, being a further elaboration on a subset of the selection of model configurations
which is part of a mental process, this limitation is also by extension a mental process.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble “The method of claim 8, wherein the future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid each comprise:” and preamble “a model of current real-world power grid assets; and a model of one or more planned changes to the electrical grid” further
describes future versions of a virtual model as described in Claim 8. Therefore, being a further
elaboration on a subset of the selection of model configurations which is part of a mental process, this
limitation is also by extension a mental process.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum amount of data to be generated by the electrical grid simulation.” , is merely a further elaboration of the previous “determination” steps. Specifically this limitation specifies that the choices made in the “determination step” satisfies some output criterion, where the output criterion includes a maximum amount of data generated. A person reasonably skilled in the field when making determinations of configurations and simulation mode has in their mind some output criteria he would like to be satisfied/maintained, which can reasonably pertain to an amount of data generated. (I.e: a time scale of 1 month at a resolution of 1 day gives 30 data generations). Therefore, this is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum processing time of the electrical grid simulation.” Is merely a further elaboration of the previous “determination” steps. Specifically this limitation specifies that the choices made in the “determination step” satisfies some output criterion, where the output criterion includes a maximum processing time. A person reasonably skilled in the field when making determinations of configurations and simulation mode has in their mind some output criteria he would like to be satisfied/maintained, which can reasonably pertain to a maximum processing time, (i.e.: a time scale of 30 days takes an hour to process, therefore I will run a simulation of 15 days instead). Therefore, this is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations of “wherein determining the particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation comprises: selecting a higher simulation resolution and a smaller simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of greater transience; and selecting a lower simulation resolution and a larger simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of lesser transience.” Is merely a further elaboration of the previous “determination” steps. Specifically this limitation specifies that the choices made in the “determination step” is based on the event being tested. A person reasonably skilled in the field when making determinations of configurations and simulation mode considers the “transience” of the event they are testing before simulation. Therefore, this is something that can be performed mentally by a person reasonably skilled in the field based on what they would like to be tested and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims (Step 2A Prong 2):
With regards to claims 6, 11-12, 18, and 21 the following limitation(s) have been identified as additional
elements. The claims recite:
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation comprises generating a visualization of the requested output for display through a user interface of a computing device.
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual model of the electrical grid comprises a virtual model of real-world electrical grid assets.
Claim 18: The system of claim 13, wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario.
Claim 21: The method of claim 1, wherein the request does not specify a simulation mode or a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the limitation “, wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario. “ is merely a recitation
of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see M PEP§ 2106.0S(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation comprises generating a visualization of the requested output for display through a user interface of a computing device.“ is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data
gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.0S(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical
application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the virtual model of the electrical grid comprises a virtual model of real-world electrical grid assets.” Is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment. (see MPEP § 2106.0S(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical
application.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation wherein the request does not specify a simulation mode or a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation. is merely a recitation
of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see M PEP§ 2106.0S(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Dependent Claims (Step 2B):
The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to
a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as
significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 does not include additional elements, alone or in the
ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial
exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception? No, the additional element, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 12 does not
recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The claim limitation previously identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP
2106.0S(g)) within the dependent limitations are:
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation comprises generating a visualization of the requested output for display through a user interface of a computing device.
Claim 18: The system of claim 13, wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario.
Claim 21: The method of claim 1, wherein the request does not specify a simulation mode or a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, this element is identified as mere data gathering as it is a further
elaboration of the extra-solution data gathering activity in Claims 1 and 13 respectively. Insignificant
extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are Well-Understood,
Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following
computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a
merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network" .. iii. Electronic recordkeeping).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception? No, the additional element, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 6, and 18
does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 11, this element is identified as mere data outputting as it is providing a visualization for the outputted data. It's described in Paragraph 0104 of the specification that the displaying of the simulation results can include "graphs, charts, and tables that indicate results of the simulation." Insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra solution
activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network" .. iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the additional element, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 21, this element is identified as mere data gathering as it is a further
elaboration of the extra-solution data gathering activity in Claim 1. Insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network" .. iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the additional element, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-8, 11, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel,
et al. (US 2015/0006141 Al, "Enenkel") in view of Mahmood, et al. (A hierarchical multi-resolution
agent-based modeling and simulation framework for household electricity demand profile, "Mahmood")
and Gong, et al. ("Study on the Data Synchronization Mechanism of Dispatcher Training Simulator",
"Gong").
Claim 1:
With regards to Claim 1, what Enenkel teaches is A computer-implemented method comprising: (Enenkel 0008, “The method can be performed as a result of execution of computer program instructions stored in a computer-readable medium by a data processor,”) receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation, (Enenkel 0082, "The user selects the desired simulation scenario using the GUI 14. The mobile device 16 then sends a request to a server associated with the computing platform 1213 for the associated simulator input file." Where citation informs upon receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation;)
;in response to receiving the request, accessing a virtual model of an electrical grid(Enenkel 0083-0085, "[In response to output received from mobile device] The server copies the correct file from the file system.
3. The server then returns the location of the input file to the mobile device 16.
4. The mobile device 16 downloads the input file from the server, renders the grid visualization, and displays it to the user." Where the input file being accessed contains the data for the simulation model and thus considered analogous to accessing the virtual model)
;determining a particular model configuration Enenkel 80, “The mobile device 16 sends to the computing platform information that describes the selected portion of the grid, e.g., bounding geographic coordinates, and a type of simulation to be performed. In response the electrical power grid simulator program 12A then performs the desired type of simulation within the user-selected portion of the grid. That is, only a portion of the overall grid that is of interest to the user can be selected and simulated.”) Examiner note: Where a type of simulation is interpreted as a particular model configuration.
determining a particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation, Enenkel 80, “The mobile device 16 sends to the computing platform information that describes the selected portion of the grid, e.g., bounding geographic coordinates, and a type of simulation to be performed. In response the electrical power grid simulator program 12A then performs the desired type of simulation within the user-selected portion of the grid. That is, only a portion of the overall grid that is of interest to the user can be selected and simulated.”) Examiner note: Where bounding geographic coordinates is interpreted as a simulation scale which is a type of simulation mode.
wherein:the electric grid simulation executed using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode is predicted to generate the requested output while satisfying at least one output criterion; (Enenkel abstract “A data processing system includes a user interface with a user input configured to enable a user to specify a type of simulation to be performed and at least one initial condition, where the simulation is executed using at least one sensor input from a grid structure composed of at least one of a power transmission and distribution grid.” ) Examiner note: Where an initial condition for the simulation is interpreted as an output criterion.
executing the electrical grid simulation using the particular model configuration and the particular simulation mode; (Enenkel 0080, "In response the electrical power grid simulator program 12A then performs the desired type of simulation within the user-selected portion of the grid." Examiner note: Where 'desired type of simulation' as described above including setting input parameters including a simulation mode and a simulation type which is interpreted as a configuration.)
and based on results of the electrical grid simulation, providing the requested output of the electrical grid simulation. (Enenkel 0089-0092, "8. The server runs code such as a script or an application on the computing platform 12B that dispatches a job for the requested simulation to the compute nodes of the computing platform 12B, which then run the simulation and writes the output file to the file system.
9. The server monitors the file system to determine when the output file is ready. Once ready,
the server copies the file from file system to its own file system.
10. The server informs the mobile device 16 where the output file is on the server.
11. The mobile device 16 downloads the output file from the server."
Examiner note: Where the process described above involved providing the requested output to the user by sending it to their mobile device after running the simulation.)
Enenkel does not expressly recite ;
However, Mahmood teaches
(Mahmood Page 3, Paragraph 7, "In our proposed framework, the challenges of spatiotemporal resolution, the stochastic nature of consumers' behavior, the integration of complex human behavior and sociologic factors, interdisciplinary modeling and scalability are covered, through hierarchical, multi-scale, multiresolution implementation." Where the citation informs on the inclusion of resolution and scale in the simulation mode; Mahmood Page 7, Paragraph 7, "These interactions are modeled using input parameters, statecharts, table functions, stochastic probabilities and logical reasoning. The emergence of all the households in use, their electrical appliances and their combination with the exogenous variables like weather, seasons, and sociological factors provide estimations for the energy consumption of a typical urban neighborhood at a selected time resolution, ranging from minutes to years." Where citation shows that the time resolution is something that is selected for analysis and thus an input parameter.)
Enenkel and Mahmood are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Mahmood to include resolution and scale in the simulation mode. As mentioned in Mahmood Page 7 Right Column Paragraph 5, this would be useful as it'd allows the user to model, analyze, and forecast the electricity consumption at the macro-, mesa-, and micro-levels. This also gives flexibility in modeling and running the simulations on different datasets.
Enenkel and Mahmood do not explicitly recite but Gong makes obvious Gong Page 1380, Right Column Paragraph 1, "In terms of time span, models can be generalized into historical models, real-time models and future models." Specification of the application defined having different configurations as having time-varying versions. It further defines time-varying version as having historical, current, and future versions of the virtual model, so the citation reads as teaching time-varying versions and thus also teaching models with multiple different configurations.)
Gong Page 1380, Right Column Paragraph 1, "In terms of time span, models can be generalized into historical models, real-time models and future models." Specification of the application defined having different configurations as having time-varying versions. It further defines time-varying version as having historical, current, and future versions of the virtual model, so the citation reads as teaching time-varying versions and thus also teaching models with multiple different configurations.)
Enenkel and Gong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Gong to include multiple configurations of a model such as time-varying versions such as the historical, current, and future versions of the electrical grid model. This is because having the different versions offers more versatility in usages, with the real-time (current) model as mentioned in Gong Page 1380 Right Column's first paragraph being used to train new power grid models while the future model is constructed for specific scenarios such as peak load in summer and ultra-high voltage loads, in addition to data synchronization and correction. Historical versions meanwhile can be used for identifying trends in performance.
With regards to Claim 2, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Mahmood teaches, wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a time resolution of the electrical grid simulation. (Mahmood Page 3, Paragraph 4, "In our proposed framework, the challenges of spatiotemporal resolution, the stochastic nature of consumers' behavior, the integration of complex human behavior and sociologic factors, interdisciplinary modeling and scalability are covered, through hierarchical, multi-scale, multiresolution implementation." Where spatiotemporal resolution being a factor insinuates temporal resolution.)
With regards to Claim 3, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Mahmood teaches wherein the particular simulation resolution comprises a spatial resolution of the electrical grid simulation. (Mahmood Page 3, Paragraph 4, "In our proposed framework, the challenges of spatiotemporal resolution, the stochastic nature of consumers' behavior, the integration of complex human behavior and sociologic factors, interdisciplinary modeling and scalability are covered, through hierarchical, multi-scale, multiresolution implementation." Where spatiotemporal resolution being a factor insinuates spatial resolution.)
With regards to Claim 4, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Mahmood teaches wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a time scale of the electrical grid simulation. (Mahmood Page 3, Paragraph 4, "In ABMS, multiscale modeling refers to the simultaneous use of different scales to describe a system of time and/or space. The key advantage of this approach is the flexibility our framework allows in running the simulator at varied time scales. It can be configured to run on a minute, hour, day, week, month or year basis and allows coverage of any spatial region from a single street to a city or province, depending on the computational power of the platform.")
With regards to Claim 5, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Mahmood teaches wherein the particular simulation scale comprises a spatial scale of the electrical grid simulation. (Mahmood Page 3, Paragraph 4, "In ABMS, multiscale modeling refers to the simultaneous use of different scales to describe a system of time and/or space. The key advantage of this approach is the flexibility our framework allows in running the simulator at varied time scales. It can be configured to run on a minute, hour, day, week, month or year basis and allows coverage of any spatial region from a single street to a city or province, depending on the computational power of the platform.")
With regards to Claim 6, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Enenkel teaches wherein the request indicates one or more input parameters for the electrical grid simulation, the one or more input parameters comprising at least one of a location, a proposed change to the electrical grid, or a scenario. ((Enenkel 0082, "The user selects the desired simulation scenario using the GUI 14. The mobile device 16 then sends a request to a server associated with the computing platform 1213 for the associated simulator input file." Where citation informs upon receiving a request for an output of an electrical grid simulation; Enenkel 0080, "The mobile device 16 sends to the computing platform information that describes the selected portion of the grid, e.g., bounding geographic coordinates, and a type of simulation to be performed. In response the electrical power grid simulator program 12A then performs the desired type of simulation within the user-selected portion of the grid." Where citation informs upon the request including data indicating input parameters, wherein the parameters in the citation are bounding geographic coordinates and simulation type.)
With regards to Claim 7, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Gong teaches wherein the multiple different model configurations include time varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid. (Gong Page 1380, Right Column Paragraph 1, "In terms of time span, models can be generalized into historical models, real-time models and future models." Specification of the application defined time-varying as having historical, current, and future versions of the virtual model, so the citation reads as teaching time-varying versions.)
With regards to Claim 8, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite limitations of Claim 7. In addition, what Gong teaches is wherein the time-varying versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid including historical versions, current versions, and future versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid. (Gong Page 1380, Right Column Paragraph 1, "In terms of time span, models can be generalized into historical models, real-time models and future models.")
With regards to Claim 11, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite
limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Enenkel teaches wherein providing the requested output of the
electrical grid simulation comprises generating a visualization of the requested output for display
through a user interface of a computing device. (Enenkel 0009, "Execution of the stored program
instructions enables the user device to ... receive from the computing platform a result of the simulation
at the user device, the simulation being based on at least one of a steady state model of the grid
structure and a dynamical model of the grid structure; and to visualize the result of the simulation with
the user interface.")
With regards to Claim 13, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches the analogous limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Enenkel teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Enenkel 0009, "In accordance with a further aspect of the embodiments of this invention there is provided a system that includes a computing platform"; Enenkel 0008, "The method can be performed as a result of execution of computer program instructions stored in a computer-readable medium by a data processor, where the computer-readable medium and the data processor comprise a part of the user device.")
With regards to Claim 18, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite
limitations of Claim 13. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 6 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 19, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite
limitations of Claim 13. In addition, the remaining limitations are similar to the limitations of Claim 7 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches the analogous limitations of Claims 1. In addition, Enenkel teaches is a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations. (Enenkel 0009, "The user device comprises a graphical user interface, at least one data processor, and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium that stores program instructions."; Enenkel 0008, "The method can be performed as a result of execution of computer program instructions stored in a computer-readable medium by a data processor, where the computer-readable medium and the data processor comprise a part of the user device.")
With regards to claim 21, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches the analogous limitations of Claims 1. In addition, Enenkel makes obvious wherein the request does not specify a simulation mode or a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation.
(par 76:”In another embodiment the user can take a real-time `snapshot` of the status of the grid and then use that grid data as the starting point for a contingency analysis simulation.” Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets this ‘snapshot’ as a request for a simulation that does not specify a model configuration for use in the electrical grid simulation).
Alternatively, See also par 81-85: “In an example of an information flow made possible by the use of the system 10 one can consider the following steps. 1. The user selects the desired simulation scenario using the GUI 14. The mobile device 16 then sends a request to a server associated with the computing platform 1213 for the associated simulator input file. 2. The simulation case files can be stored on the file system (e.g., a parallel file system such as one known as General Parallel File System (GPFS.TM.)). The GPFS.TM. is an example of a high-performance shared-disk clustered file system and can be attached to the computing platform 12B. The server copies the correct file from the file system. 3. The server then returns the location of the input file to the mobile device 16. 4. The mobile device 16 downloads the input file from the server, renders the grid visualization, and displays it to the user. Examiner note: Where a user selects a desired simulation scenario and the computing device selects a simulator input file based on the user selection, rather than the user directly requesting a configuration/mode.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel in view of
Mahmood, Gong, and Schlichtner (US 2021/0058460 Al, "Schlichtner").
With regards to Claim 9, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite
limitations of Claim 8. Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong doesn't explicitly teach wherein the
current versions of the virtual model of the electrical grid include an as-designed version, an as-built
version, and an operational version of the virtual model of the electrical grid.
However, Schlichtner teaches wherein the current versions of the virtual model of the
electrical grid include an as-designed version, an as-built version, and an operational version of the
virtual model of the electrical grid. (Schlichtner 0042, "The component data may also be data that
relates to a digital twin of the automation component. The digital twin contains status data of the
automation component. The status data relates to an as-designed, an as-planned, an as-built. an as installed, an as-maintained, and/or an as-operated state of the automation component.")
Enenkel and Schlichtner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in
simulation models. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Schlichtner to include virtual models of the as-designed, as-built, and operational versions of the electrical grid. As discussed further in Schlichtner 0042, the inclusion of the various versions is mentioned as being useful due to providing considerable diversity in data, and that such is necessary due to the "ever increasing complexity of the possible configurations ... from development, through manufacture and servicing, to disposal." Thus, the usage of various versions would be important due to the electrical grid deviating from its baseline performance over time and thus be something that needs to be accounted for in simulation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel in view of
Mahmood, Gong, Torre-Bueno (US 20140324404 Al, "Torre-Bueno"), and Frew, et al. (Temporal and
spatial tradeoffs in power system modeling with assumptions about storage: An application of the
POWER model).
With regards to Claim 10, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite
limitations of Claim 8. Additionally, Gong teaches [wherein] the future versions of the virtual model of
the electrical grid [each comprise:] (Gong Page 1380, Right Column Paragraph 1, "In terms of time span,
models can be generalized into historical models, real-time models and future models.")
Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong doesn't explicitly teach [wherein the future versions of
the virtual model of the electrical grid each comprise:]
a model of current real-world power grid assets; and
a model of one or more planned changes to the electrical grid.
However, Frew teaches
each comprise:
a model of current real-world power grid assets; and (Frew Page 200, "Additionally, there are
optional submodels to include existing generators, generator retirements based on age and
environmental regulations, and additional firm and flexible load from plug-in electric vehicle (PEV)
charging." Where including existing generators in submodels insinuates modeling off of real-world
power grid assets.)
Enenkel and Frew are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in
simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Frew to include modelling of current real-world power
grid assets. This is because it would allow for accurate cost and power load analysis in integrating realworld assets into the power grid.
Torre-Bueno meanwhile teaches a model of one or more planned changes to the electrical
grid. (Torre-Bueno 0053, "The final electronic description or model of the building IDF 2900' may then
be deemed sufficiently accurate to be used for all appropriate modeling purposes, such as to simulate
energy usage in that building under a variety of different proposed scenarios, such as upgrades of HVAC
systems or windows. or architectural changes." Changes to the HVAC systems are read as one possible
proposed change to electrical grid as this affects the power load such as the addition of additional HVAC
elements or upgrading existing HVAC elements which either has a stronger power draw or is more
efficient.)
Enenkel and Torre-Bueno are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in
simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Torre-Bueno to include the input parameters for
location, scenario, and proposed change. Torre-Buena's Background explains that the more information
that is provided, the more accurate that the simulation will become as a result of accounting for
different circumstances. In addition, it's explained in Paragraph 0003 of Torre-Bueno that analyzing the
costs of proposed changes and comparing them to projected impact on energy usage will help provide
the best return in economic investment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel in view of
Mahmood, Gong, and Frew.
With regards to Claim 12, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite of
Claim 1. Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong doesn't explicitly teach wherein the virtual model of
the electrical grid comprises a virtual model of real-world electrical grid assets.
However, Frew teaches wherein the virtual model of the electrical grid comprises a virtual
model of real-world electrical grid assets. (Frew Page 200, Left Column Paragraph 4, "Additionally,
there are optional submodels to include existing generators, generator retirements based on age and
environmental regulations, and additional firm and flexible load from plug-in electric vehicle (PEV)
charging." Where including existing generators in submodels insinuates modeling off of real-world
power grid assets.)
Enenkel and Frew are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in
simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Frew to include modelling of current real-world power grid assets. This is because it would allow for accurate cost and power load analysis in integrating realworld assets into the power grid.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel in view of Mahmood, Gong, and “sldvoptions documentation 2020b”
With regards to claim 22, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite of
Claim 1. Furthermore, Mahmood makes obvious page 657 col 2 par 2: “
Multiscale: In ABMS, multiscale modeling refers to the simultaneous use of different scales to describe a system of time and/or space. The key advantage of this approach is the flexibility our framework allows in running the simulator at varied time scales.15 It can be configured to run on a minute, hour, day, week, month or year basis and allows coverage of any spatial region from a single street to a city or province, depending on the computational power of the platform. (3) Multiresolution: In modeling, the resolution refers to the level of details captured in the process of abstraction while conceptualizing the real system. Greater details lead to higher resolution of the model. In ABMS, the resolution plays an important role as it produces a tradeoff between a higher level of detail and the ability to populate a large number of agents. A multi-resolution modeling framework simultaneously accommodates varying levels of detail of different interacting entities within the same framework.” … page 661 col 1 par 3: “Model Scale: Specifies the size of the data e.g.,number of entities covered.”) Examiner note: Where the scale is an amount of data generated based on the time step/ resolution. Where this passage makes obvious a tradeoff between having a maximum amount of data generated based on the scale and resolution of the model.
Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong do not explicitly recite wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum
SldvOptions however, makes obvious wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum [amount of time steps] (Under section Output arguments, page 5: “MaxTestCaseSteps, Specify the maximum number of simulation steps when attempting to satisfy a test objective” Examiner note: Where as outlined above, one ordinarily skilled in the art recognizes that determining a max number of simulation steps (ie: scale divided by resolution) encompasses an amount of data generated when the amount of data generated is based on the size of a known scale.
Enenkel, Mahmood and SldvOptions are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called simulation and modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel, Mahmood and SldvOptions. The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready to improve results. Mahmood states . (page 657 col 2 par 2: “Multiscale: In ABMS, multiscale modeling refers to the simultaneous use of different scales to describe a system of time and/or space. The key advantage of this approach is the flexibility our framework allows in running the simulator at varied time scales.15 It can be configured to run on a minute, hour, day, week, month or year basis and allows coverage of any spatial region from a single street to a city or province, depending on the computational power of the platform.) When using a platform with low computational power, the user of Mahmood would be motivated to place limits to take advantage of their flexibility approach to gather data at different resolutions or scale. One method of doing so would be to set a maximum computation limit based on data generated. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that generating data is what causes computational use, and that placing a limit on the computational data generated would be a recognizable way to run the framework with lower computational power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the multi-scale and resolution simulation method of Enenkel, and Mahmood with setting limits on computational power of SldvOptions for the benefit of running the simulation with lower computational power using varied time scales to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
With regards to claim 23, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite of
Claim 1. Furthermore, Enenkel electrical grid simulation. (par 3: “ The exemplary embodiments of this invention relate generally to simulation methods and systems and, more specifically, relates to transmission and distribution power grid simulation methods and systems.”)
Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong do not explicitly recite wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum processing time of the
SldvOptions however, makes obvious wherein the at least one output criterion includes a maximum processing time Under section Output Arguments, page 5 “MaxProcessTime, Specify the maximum time (in seconds)for analyzing a model.”)
Enenkel and SldvOptions are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called simulation and modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and SldvOptions. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching proposed in the art. Enenkel par 51 states “For example, reference can be made to FIG. 1C that shows an example of N-k contingency hardware requirements, in this example an estimated number of Blue Gene/Q cores required to run an N-k contingency simulation in one minute, versus k. In general the needed computing power of the platform 12B is that required to complete a desired simulation in an acceptable amount of time (e.g., 1 minute for "real-time", 1 hour for "near real-time", etc.) For example, reference can be made to FIG. 1C that shows an example of N-k contingency hardware requirements, in this example an estimated number of Blue Gene/Q cores required to run an N-k contingency simulation in one minute, versus k. In general the needed computing power of the platform 12B is that required to complete a desired simulation in an acceptable amount of time (e.g., 1 minute for "real-time", 1 hour for "near real-time", etc.) However, it should be appreciated that the embodiments of this invention do not require any specific type or class of computing platform 12B.” When not using the required computing platform as outlined by Enenkel, the user of Enenkel would be motivated to set a time limit on the processing time before simulation, in order to run the simulation in a desired amount of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the simulation workflow of Enenkel with the known technique in simulation of setting a max process time for the benefit of ensuring the simulation completes in a desired time to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enenkel in view of Mahmood, Gong, and “Scalable Electric Power System Simulator” Ilic. Et al.
With regards to Claim 24, Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong teaches all the prerequisite of
Claim 1. Enenkel in view of Mahmood and Gong do not explicitly teach wherein determining the particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation comprises:
selecting a higher simulation resolution and a smaller simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of greater transience;
and selecting a lower simulation resolution and a larger simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of lesser transience.
However, Ilic makes obvious wherein determining the particular simulation mode for the electrical grid simulation comprises:
selecting a higher simulation resolution and a smaller simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of greater transience;
and selecting a lower simulation resolution and a larger simulation scale when the electrical grid simulation simulates an event of lesser transience.
page 3 col 2 par 3 2) Self-adaptive component modeling: Shown in Fig. 2 is the conceptual diagram of the component model and its interactions internally and interfaces to the rest of the physical system and coordinating entities. The orange colored block in the bottom is the physical model. If the fast evolving states (Examiner note: an event of transience) xf[Tp]are seen to be stable, it can further be simplified to a lower order model that just approximates the fast trajectories but models slowly evolving states at xsat Tps time scale, as colored in yellow blocks. The advantage of doing this is that it reduces the computational burden in simulation by facilitating larger time step (examiner note: lower resolution) for numerical integration. Note that the systematic model order reduction is performed only after verifying the stability of the faster states. In case of instability, red warning flags are sent out to the higher layer models to re- do the decision making. (Examiner note: Where this makes obvious the reverse process of increasing resolution if an event is considered unstable or fast evolving)
Enenkel and Ilic are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in
simulation of electrical grids. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Ilic to include dynamic resolutions and scales based on the transience of events. This is because, as stated by Ilic page 3 col 2 “The advantage of doing this is that it reduces the computational burden in simulation.” Enenkel states par 51: “For example, reference can be made to FIG. 1C that shows an example of N-k contingency hardware requirements, in this example an estimated number of Blue Gene/Q cores required to run an N-k contingency simulation in one minute, versus k. In general the needed computing power of the platform 12B is that required to complete a desired simulation in an acceptable amount of time (e.g., 1 minute for "real-time", 1 hour for "near real-time", etc.). However, it should be appreciated that the embodiments of this invention do not require any specific type or class of computing platform 12B.” When following the invention of Enenkel, if the user of Enenkel does not use the specific class of computing platform necessary to “complete a desired simulation in an acceptable amount of time” then the user of Enenkel would be motivated to introduce alternative methods to save computational burdens. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Enenkel and Ilic to include dynamic resolutions and scales based on the transience of events to reduce computing power of the platform and to achieve the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights