DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 1/14/2026
Claims 1, 2, 9, 17, 18are amended.
Claims 11 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 - 21 are presented for examination.
Final Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Specification
The Applicant has amended the abstract. The objection is withdrawn. The abstract dated 1/14/2026 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In particular, in the arguments dated 1/14/2026 the Applicant quotes paragraph 70 of Chainer_2013 and highlights that in that paragraph is discussing the graphical user interface that compares the simulated result of two different data center system. Specifically, the Applicant high lights that one data center design has liquid cooled chiller-less refrigeration while the other data center design has a typical air-based refrigeration.
The Applicant argues that because Chainer_2013 includes a teaching the comparison between refrigeration systems in paragraph 70 that Chainer_2013 does not make “electrical grid” obvious.
Additionally, the Applicant asserts that Chainer_2013 does not make obvious having different version of a virtual model of the data center and in particular does not make obvious “the proposed modifications” to “a current configuration”. The Applicant asserts that any comparison made between in Chainer_2013 is merely a hypothetical one.
The Applicant further summarily asserts that Enekel_2018 also does not make these elements obvious.
In response the argument is not persuasive because a review of the prior art finds that such elements are made obvious by the combination.
Therefore, at issue is whether Chainer_2013 in view of Enekel_2018 makes obvious “electrical grid” and comparison of “the proposed modification” to “a current configuration” of an electrical grid obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
The argument has been considered but it is not persuasive. The Applicant has merely chosen to focus only on one particular component (i.e., refrigeration) and is purposefully ignoring all other teachings and components.
Chainer_2013 teaches, for example:
Par 4: “data centers are facilities that house numerous computer systems arranged in the form of electronic racks… each computer system in a rack may include one or more processors, memory devices, controllers, power converters and manipulators and other such electronic components… a computer system may dissipate on the order of a few hundred watts to a few kilowatts. A significant amount of cooling is therefore required to keep the electronics components within an optimum operating temperature…”
Par 26: “as noted above, data centers are facilities that house numerous computer systems arranged in the form of electronic racks… may include… power converters and manipulators and other such electronic components…”
Par 50: “… the pump electrical energy consumption can be determined using the pumping power…”
Par 100 “… for design… chiller-less data center with water cooled servers containing electronic equipment…”
The above paragraphs clearly teaches that the data centers contain “numerous” electrical components and explicitly teaches “power converters” which are commonly known as transformers (e.g., AC/DC, Voltage, Current). Therefore, Chainer_2013
The above paragraphs also clearly teaches that the cooling system is part of the electrical system itself because it is a vital component integrated into the electrical system for the purpose of keeping the numerous other electrical components at their optimal operating temperature. Therefore, Chainer_2013 is not merely directed towards refrigeration systems but rather a system of connected electrical components (i.e., an electrical grid) that includes components that provide refrigeration and maintain the electrical grid at an optimal temperature. Indeed, the above paragraphs indicate that the refrigeration system includes pumps and the pumps are electrically connected to the electrical grid and consume electrical power. Accordingly, the refrigeration system are part of the electrical grid.
Furthermore, with regard to the comparison of “the proposed modification” to “a current configuration” Chainer_2013 teaches, for example:
Par 8: “technical benefit of the present invention… a significant technical benefit is in guiding design choices… guide system level design decisions; help quantify single component impact… help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”.
Par 29: “… provide a system design simulator… to compare among feasible data center design for any given application…”.
Par 30: “… to compare among feasible data center designs for any given application… it is to be noted that one or more embodiments have a variety of applications, and are not to limited to the exemplary applications listed above…”.
Par 32: “… to enable better design selection and help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”.
Par 36: “… explore and compare among various design choices and physical locations…”.
Par 74: “… explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”
Par 80: “… provide a method of designing and selecting… the method further includes using the input parameters to determine the quasistatic performance… the quasistatic performance is compared to at least two configurations to determine an optimized system configuration…”
Par 97: “… quasi-static performance is compared among two or more configurations to determine an optimized system configuration… however, any configuration or selection of design(s) and/or component(s) can be compared to any other configuration(s)…”
The above citations clearly teach that to compare the simulation results between two or more system configurations for the purpose of exploring design choices. The concept of exploring and comparing among possible design system choices makes obvious the comparison of “the proposed modification” to “a current configuration”. Indeed, FIG. 13 clearly illustrates that the GUI has “Reference Data Center”. The “Reference Data Center” is “a current configuration”. Accordingly, the “Reference Data Center” simulation results such as electricity used per year in KWhr is compared to the “New Efficiency Level” of the design variation. The design variation is the claimed “proposed modification”. Accordingly, the Office finds that Chainer_2013 clearly teaches to compare “a current configuration” (i.e., Reference Data Center) to a “proposed modification” (i.e., design variation).
Additionally, Enenkel_2018 teaches, for example:
Par 32: “… the operation of the electrical power grid simulator 12A computing platform 12B can be considered to implement a ‘virtual grid’ whereby monitoring and simulation of the grid 15 can be carried out…”.
FIG. 1B clearly illustrates a “Virtual Grid”.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the cited prior art clearly teaches to perform simulations of versions of a virtual grid model of a system of electrical grid components and compare the current configuration to a proposed modification of the system.
End Response to Arguments
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.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer_2013 (US 2013/0317785) in view of Enenkel_2018 (US 2018/0129768).
Claim 1. Chainer_2013 makes obvious “A computer-implemented method comprising (FIG. 15, par 22: “FIG. 15 depicts a computer system that may be useful in implementing one or more aspects and/or elements of the invention…”; par 7: “… a computer program product including a computer readable storage medium with computer usable program code for performing the method steps indicated. Furthermore, one or more embodiments of the invention or elements thereof can be implemented in the form of a system (or apparatus) including memory, and at least one processor… operative to perform exemplary method steps…”): Providing, for presentation by a display, a user interface including graphics depicting one or more fields for receiving input for simulations of electrical [equipment] scenarios; Receiving, though the user interface, input for a scenario, the input including: A geographic location for this scenario; A time scale for the scenario; and A proposed modification to an electrical
Performing a simulation for the scenario using a version of a virtual model of the electrical
Modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting:
One or more visualizations of results of the simulation of the scenario compared to results of a baseline simulation of a baseline scenario, wherein the baseline simulation is performed using a version of the virtual model that represents a current configuration of the electrical [equipment]
; and A menu of options for modifying the input;
Receiving, through the user interface, a selection from the menu of options for modifying the input;
Performing a modified simulation using the modified input;
and Modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting one or more visualizations of results of the modified simulation compared to (i) the results of the simulation, (ii) the results of the baseline simulation, or (iii) both” (FIG. 13:
PNG
media_image1.png
700
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NOTE: items 1308 illustrate a model of the electrical equipment. Item 1310 illustrates a user input for the location. Item 1316 illustrates a user input for timescale. The top of the GUI illustrates where inputs are received through the user interface that set up the simulation scenario. The “Output Window” illustrated in the bottom half of he GUI is where the user interface is modified to show the outputs of the simulation. The GUI allows modification of the inputs for repeated simulations by modifications to, for example, temperature limits, location, timescale, required rack power, cost of power, control algorithms, etc. Additionally, item 1324 shows a tabulated comparison of the executed simulation to a reference simulation. FIG. 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
733
1156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NOTE: FIG. 12 also illustrates a graphical output that compares 4 different simulations.
Par 8: “technical benefit of the present invention… a significant technical benefit is in guiding design choices… guide system level design decisions; help quantify single component impact… help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”.
Par 29: “… provide a system design simulator… to compare among feasible data center design for any given application…”.
Par 30: “… to compare among feasible data center designs for any given application… it is to be noted that one or more embodiments have a variety of applications, and are not to limited to the exemplary applications listed above…”.
Par 32: “… to enable better design selection and help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”.
Par 36: “… explore and compare among various design choices and physical locations…”.
Par 74: “… explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”
Par 80: “… provide a method of designing and selecting… the method further includes using the input parameters to determine the quasistatic performance… the quasistatic performance is compared to at least two configurations to determine an optimized system configuration…”
Par 97: “… quasi-static performance is compared among two or more configurations to determine an optimized system configuration… however, any configuration or selection of design(s) and/or component(s) can be compared to any other configuration(s)…”
The above citations clearly teach that to compare the simulation results between two or more system configurations for the purpose of exploring design choices. The concept of exploring and comparing among possible design system choices makes obvious the comparison of “the proposed modification” to “a current configuration”.
Indeed, FIG. 13 clearly illustrates that the GUI has “Reference Data Center”. The “Reference Data Center” is “a current configuration”. Accordingly, the “Reference Data Center” simulation results such as electricity used per year in KWhr is compared to the “New Efficiency Level” of the design variation. The design variation is the claimed “proposed modification”. Accordingly, the Office finds that Chainer_2013 clearly teaches to compare “a current configuration” (i.e., Reference Data Center) to a “proposed modification” (i.e., design variation).
While Chainer_2013 clearly makes obvious to simulate electrical equipment that is connected to, and therefore, part of an electrical gird, Chainer_2013 does not explicitly teach to simulate the grid itself.
Enenkel_2018, however, makes obvious to simulate an “electrical grid” (FIG. 1B:
PNG
media_image3.png
716
1041
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Par 7: “… the embodiments of this invention there is provided a method to simulate operation of a grid structure. The method includes specifying a type of simulation to be performed and at least one initial condition with a user interface…”.
Par 32: “…The operation of the electrical power grid simulator 12A computing platform 12B can be considered to implement a ‘virtual grid”
Chainer_2013 and Enenkel_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chainer_2013 and Enenkel_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been the Chainer_2013 teaches to a user interface for inputting information about a complex system that is connected to the power grid and consumes power (i.e., puts a load on the power grid) and to simulate the power consumption of the system under different conditions.
Enenkel_2018 explicitly states:
Par 94: “… the simulation module can be configured to simulate as non-limiting examples power grids, communication grids, water distribution grids, electric grids on integrated circuits, etc., as well other types of complex multi-dimensional structures and systems and grids having nodes that are interconnected by pathways, branches and conduits that can convey energy, fluid, radiation, motor vehicles, aircraft (a three-dimensional air traffic control gird) etc…”
Par 43: “… generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively come on line during a heat wave…”
Par 40: “… excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going offline… the simulation can be run… with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”
Therefore, to obtain the invention as specified in the claims, it would have been obvious to combine the user interface of Chainer_2013 and the air conditioners/cooling required for data centers as taught by Chainer_2013 with the simulation system for power grids taught by Enenkel_2018 for the benefit of performing studies such as cascade failures that may occur under heavy reactive loads caused by, for example, air conditioning/cooling of data centers and because the simulation system of Enenkel_2018 are explicitly taught to be applicable to complex systems that include conduits the convey energy and include fluids. Cooling systems are complex systems that include conduits that convey energy and include fluids.
Claim 17. The limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Enenkel_2018 makes obvious the further limitations of “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” (par 107: “as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product… may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment… or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects… embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.”)
Claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim. Additionally, Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “… And a selectable option to input an additional scenario;
In response to receiving a selection of the selectable option to input an additional scenario, modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting the one or more fields for receiving input for simulations of electrical grid scenarios;
Receiving, through the user interface, second input for a second scenario;
In response to receiving the second input, performing a second simulation for the second scenario by modeling the second input in the virtual model of the electrical grid…” (par 20: “FIG. 10 shows the operation of the Simulation Navigator of FIG. 6 for enabling a visualization and navigation of multiple simulation results” Par 18: “FIGS. 6 – 8 each show an exemplary display at the mobile device shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B of a summary visualization of N-1 contingency scenarios” par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used…” par 44: “… multiple scenarios is related to performing a contingency analysis… N scenarios are generated…” NOTE: the above figures and citations teach to have a GUI that allows for inputting selections for more than one scenario and then to execute simulations of the scenario and then to have a GUI that displays the scenario outputs on a display for comparison)
Claim 2. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the display comprises a first display, the method comprising: Receiving, through a second user interface presented on a second display, (par 32: “… in practice there could be many mobile devices 16 in use at any given time, where the mobile device 16 could be distributed over a wide geographical area both within the geographical area of the grid 15 and external to the grid 15”; par 54: “… the mobile GUI 14 is used to visualize the current state of the grid 15, to remotely initiate simulations on high performance computing platform 12B and to visualize the results of the simulations…”; par 9: “… The computing platform is configured to execute an electrical power grid simulator program and further comprises a second interface configured to communicate with at least one user device through a communication layer…” NOTE: at least one user device implies more than one display because there are more than one user devices each having a display. Par 97: “… with this invention the user can interact with simulations that are currently running (enabled by high speed computation, massive parallelism and flexible user interface”) input for a second scenario, the input including a second proposed modification to the electrical grid (par 59: “if it is desired to modify the parameters of any of the generators or loads, tapping on them opens a parameter modification/editing sidebar such as the one shown in FIG. 3); Performing a second simulation using a version of the virtual grid of the electrical grid that represents the electrical ” (par 106: “the embodiments of this invention also encompass a ‘differential’ visualization mode of operation where what is displayed to the user represents a difference between two (or more) simulation results that represent a difference between two (or more) grid states. For example, one simulation result may be a historical (stored) simulation result while another simulation result may be a current simulation result. The results are compared and what is visualized is the difference between the simulation results… this mode of operation enables the user to readily compare a difference between the two or more grid states and the effect on the operational status of the grid structure…”).
Chainer_2013 also makes obvious “… input for a second scenario, the input including a second proposed modification to the electrical grid; Performing a second simulation using a version of the virtual model of the electrical grid that represents the electrical grid with the second proposed modification; and Modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting one or more visualizations of the results of the simulation compared to the results of the second simulation” (Par 8: “technical benefit of the present invention… a significant technical benefit is in guiding design choices… guide system level design decisions; help quantify single component impact… help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”. Par 29: “… provide a system design simulator… to compare among feasible data center design for any given application…”. Par 30: “… to compare among feasible data center designs for any given application… it is to be noted that one or more embodiments have a variety of applications, and are not to limited to the exemplary applications listed above…”. Par 32: “… to enable better design selection and help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”. Par 36: “… explore and compare among various design choices and physical locations…”. Par 74: “… explore and/or compare numerous design variations…” Par 80: “… provide a method of designing and selecting… the method further includes using the input parameters to determine the quasistatic performance… the quasistatic performance is compared to at least two configurations to determine an optimized system configuration…” Par 97: “… quasi-static performance is compared among two or more configurations to determine an optimized system configuration… however, any configuration or selection of design(s) and/or component(s) can be compared to any other configuration(s)…” EXAMINER NOTE: The above citations clearly teach to compare the simulation results between two or more system configurations for the purpose of exploring design choices. The concept of exploring and comparing among possible design system choices makes obvious the comparison of “a second scenario” to “a current/first configuration/scenario”. Indeed, FIG. 13 clearly illustrates that the GUI has “Reference Data Center”. The “Reference Data Center” is “a current/first configuration scenario”. Accordingly, the “Reference Data Center” simulation results such as electricity used per year in KWhr is compared to the “New Efficiency Level” of the design variation of the second scenario.).
Claim 3. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein: the scenario comprises a particular grid configuration, and performing the simulation for the scenario comprises: Adjusting the virtual model of the electrical grid to represent the particular grid configuration; and Determining characteristics of the adjusted virtual model of the electrical grid under various simulated conditions” (Par 40: “… the simulator can perform multistep simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bound quantities are assumed to lead to component failure or operation mode changes, for example… the generator going off line… the branch to trip and go out of service. After adjusting the model to reflect any failures or operation mode changes, the simulation can be run again… by continuing to iterate in this manner with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”; par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used… automatically generate multiple scenarios the user picks an available starting scenario, the desired number of scenarios to be generated, and any available rules for generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively com on line during a heat wave…”; par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s), the user selects whether a one-step or multi-step simulation by the power grid simulator 12A is desired. A one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power gird 15 for each of the single or multiple initial scenarios. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bounds values, modifies the power grid model to reflect unit failures, and re-runs the simulation. This process can iterate…”).
Claim 4. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the particular grid configuration includes at least one of an added or removed power source, and upgraded asset, or an added or removed connection” (par 40: “… for example, excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going offline… excessive power flow on a branch can cause the branch to trip and go out of service…”; par 103: “… the user selectively specifying certain scenarios via the GUI 14, such as adding an element to the grid structure (e.g., adding a new generator at a certain location within the grid structure) or replacing an existing element with another element (e.g., replacing a solar generator with a wind generator)…”; page 11 item 14: “… to selectively add at least one element to the grid structure, to selectively remove at least one element from the grid structure, or to selectively replace at least one existing element of the grid structure with another element…”; par 32: “… this smart grid 15 also includes the transmission distribution grid per se such as high voltage, medium and low voltage lines along with transformers and related equipment…”).
Claim 5. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the various simulated conditions include at least one of various environmental conditions or various load conditions” (par 40: “… for example, excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going offline… excessive power flow on a branch can cause the branch to trip and go out of service…”; par 106: “… in another example one simulation result may have as a simulation scenario an ambient temperature of 72deg F. while a second simulation result may assume an ambient temperature of 76deg F.”).
Claim 6. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein: The scenario comprises a particular condition, and performing the simulation for the scenario comprises: Adjusting the virtual model of the electrical grid to represent the particular condition; and Determining characteristics of the adjusted virtual model of the electrical grid in various simulated grid configurations” (Par 40: “… the simulator can perform multistep simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bound quantities are assumed to lead to component failure or operation mode changes, for example… the generator going off line… the branch to trip and go out of service. After adjusting the model to reflect any failures or operation mode changes, the simulation can be run again… by continuing to iterate in this manner with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”; par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used… automatically generate multiple scenarios the user picks an available starting scenario, the desired number of scenarios to be generated, and any available rules for generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively com on line during a heat wave…”; par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s), the user selects whether a one-step or multi-step simulation by the power grid simulator 12A is desired. A one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power gird 15 for each of the single or multiple initial scenarios. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bounds values, modifies the power grid model to reflect unit failures, and re-runs the simulation. This process can iterate…”).
Claim 7. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the particular condition includes at least one of a particular environment condition or a particular load condition” (par 40: “… for example, excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going offline… excessive power flow on a branch can cause the branch to trip and go out of service…”; par 106: “… in another example one simulation result may have as a simulation scenario an ambient temperature of 72deg F. while a second simulation result may assume an ambient temperature of 76deg F.”).
Claim 8. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the various simulated grid configurations includes at least one of added and removed power sources, upgraded assets, or added or removed connections” (par 40: “… for example, excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going offline… excessive power flow on a branch can cause the branch to trip and go out of service…”; par 103: “… the user selectively specifying certain scenarios via the GUI 14, such as adding an element to the grid structure (e.g., adding a new generator at a certain location within the grid structure) or replacing an existing element with another element (e.g., replacing a solar generator with a wind generator)…”; page 11 item 14: “… to selectively add at least one element to the grid structure, to selectively remove at least one element from the grid structure, or to selectively replace at least one existing element of the grid structure with another element…”; par 32: “… this smart grid 15 also includes the transmission distribution grid per se such as high voltage, medium and low voltage lines along with transformers and related equipment…”).
Claim 9. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “comprising: performing the baseline simulation for the geographic location and the time scale included in the input (par 79: “… the user is enabled to select a portion of a displayed grid (e.g., a power distribution grid)… 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…”; par 95: “the user I/O device embodies in, for example, the mobile device 16 includes a visualizer for displaying a graphical representation of the grid or grid simulation past, current or future times, and can include a user input device… to direct and control the operation of the simulation including setup, run time and analysis…”; par 66: “… scenarios can be represented… steps (horizontal axis). The horizontal axis could also represent time…”), wherein the results of the simulation include effects of the proposed modification on results of the baseline simulation (Par 40: “… the simulator can perform multistep simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bound quantities are assumed to lead to component failure or operation mode changes, for example… the generator going off line… the branch to trip and go out of service. After adjusting the model to reflect any failures or operation mode changes, the simulation can be run again… by continuing to iterate in this manner with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”; par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used… automatically generate multiple scenarios the user picks an available starting scenario, the desired number of scenarios to be generated, and any available rules for generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively come on line during a heat wave…”; par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s), the user selects whether a one-step or multi-step simulation by the power grid simulator 12A is desired. A one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power gird 15 for each of the single or multiple initial scenarios. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bounds values, modifies the power grid model to reflect unit failures, and re-runs the simulation. This process can iterate…”).
Chainer_2013 also makes obvious “comprising: performing the baseline simulation for the geographic location and the time scale included in the input wherein the results of the simulation include effects of the proposed modification on results of the baseline simulation ( Par 8: “technical benefit of the present invention… a significant technical benefit is in guiding design choices… guide system level design decisions; help quantify single component impact… help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”. Par 29: “… provide a system design simulator… to compare among feasible data center design for any given application…”. Par 30: “… to compare among feasible data center designs for any given application… it is to be noted that one or more embodiments have a variety of applications, and are not to limited to the exemplary applications listed above…”. Par 32: “… to enable better design selection and help explore and/or compare numerous design variations…”. Par 36: “… explore and compare among various design choices and physical locations…”. Par 74: “… explore and/or compare numerous design variations…” Par 80: “… provide a method of designing and selecting… the method further includes using the input parameters to determine the quasistatic performance… the quasistatic performance is compared to at least two configurations to determine an optimized system configuration…” Par 97: “… quasi-static performance is compared among two or more configurations to determine an optimized system configuration… however, any configuration or selection of design(s) and/or component(s) can be compared to any other configuration(s)…”.
EXAMINER NOTES: The above citations clearly teach that to compare the simulation results between two or more system configurations for the purpose of exploring design choices. The concept of exploring and comparing among possible design system choices makes obvious the comparison of “the proposed modification” to “a current configuration”. Indeed, FIG. 13 clearly illustrates that the GUI has “Reference Data Center”. The “Reference Data Center” is “a current configuration”. Accordingly, the “Reference Data Center” simulation results such as electricity used per year in KWhr is compared to the “New Efficiency Level” of the design variation. The design variation is the claimed “proposed modification”. Accordingly, the Office finds that Chainer_2013 clearly teaches to compare “a current configuration” (i.e., Reference Data Center) to a “proposed modification” (i.e., design variation).
Claim 10. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “Wherein: the modified input includes a second proposed modification to the electrical grid that is different from the proposed modification, and the results of the modified simulation include effects of the second proposed modification on results of the baseline simulation” (Par 40: “… the simulator can perform multistep simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bound quantities are assumed to lead to component failure or operation mode changes, for example… the generator going off line… the branch to trip and go out of service. After adjusting the model to reflect any failures or operation mode changes, the simulation can be run again… by continuing to iterate in this manner with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”; par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used… automatically generate multiple scenarios the user picks an available starting scenario, the desired number of scenarios to be generated, and any available rules for generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively come on line during a heat wave…”; par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s), the user selects whether a one-step or multi-step simulation by the power grid simulator 12A is desired. A one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power gird 15 for each of the single or multiple initial scenarios. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bounds values, modifies the power grid model to reflect unit failures, and re-runs the simulation. This process can iterate…”).
Claim 12. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “comprising: evaluating the proposed modification using a set or rules; and providing, for presentation by the display, a notification that the proposed modification violates at least one rule of the set of rules” (Par 66: “… displayed using the sidebar 42 shown in the upper right corner of the GUI screen. It is also possible to view aggregated statistics over multiple results, such a minimum, average, and maximum asset utilization, or percentage of values out of bounds…”; Par 40: “… simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bounds quantities…”; par 46: “… a multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bound values…”)
Claim 13. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein each rule includes in the set of rules comprises at least one of a law, a regulation, an equipment limitation, and operation limitation, or an industrial standard” (par 40: “… out-of-bounds quantities are assumed to least to component failure or operation mode changes. For example, excessive reactive power demand on a generator can result in the generator going off line, or the generator producing a fixed amount of active and reactive power… excessive power flow on a branch can cause the branch to trip and go out of service…”)
Claim 14. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the virtual model of the electrical grid comprises a virtual model of a real-world electrical grid assets” (FIG. 1B item 15 illustrates a real-world electrical grid)
Claim 15. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “wherein the geographic location includes a location of a selected feeder of a real-world electrical grid” (FIG. 1B item 15 illustrates a real-world electrical grid with feeders coming from generation sources. Par 32: “… including various power generators (e.g., public power plants, wind turbine generators, solar generators) plus energy storage equipment and plug-in EV units. The smart grid 15 also includes the transmission distribution grid per se such as high voltage, medium and low voltage lines along with transformers and related equipment…”; par 34: “… buses represent generators, loads, and/or connection substations, and each branch represents a transmission line…”; par 93: “in general a grid can be comprised of a transmission grid or grids and/or a distribution grid or grids, and all of the attendant systems and subsystems thereof known to those skilled in the art…” NOTE: the definition of a feeder is a transmission line that carried electricity from a source to an area of the electric grid. In FIG. 1B a three-phase high voltage line is illustrated from the wind power and solar panel sources into the grid. Therefore, a “feeder” line is obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “comprising: In response to receiving the input for the scenario, accessing the virtual model of the electrical grid, the virtual model includes multiple different model configurations; and Selecting, based on the input for the scenario (par 43: “… the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used. A single scenario to be used is chosen from a list of available scenarios. Multiple scenarios may either be chosen from available prepared sets of multiple scenarios, or they may be automatically generated…”), (i) a simulation model including a resolution and scale of the simulation (par 56: “… the power grid 15 is laid out geographically on top of a map of the relevant area… the user can pan and zoom in or out, to facilitate broad overviews or detailed manipulations of a small part of a large network…”; par 73: “… zooming in on area of interest… allows more detailed to be viewed, down to the level of specific localized numerical information…; par 79: “… the user is enabled to select a portion of a displayed grid (e.g., a power distribution grid)… 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…”; par 95: “the user I/O device embodies in, for example, the mobile device 16 includes a visualizer for displaying a graphical representation of the grid or grid simulation past, current or future times, and can include a user input device… to direct and control the operation of the simulation including setup, run time and analysis…”; par 66: “… scenarios can be represented… steps (horizontal axis). The horizontal axis could also represent time…”) and (ii) one of the multiple different model configurations, wherein performing the simulation for the scenario comprises executing the simulation in the selected simulation mode using the selected model configuration” (par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s)… a one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power grid 15 for each of the single or multiple initial states. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner…”; par 40: “… after adjusting the model… the simulation can be run again…”).
Claim 19. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “Wherein the display comprises a first display, the method comprising: receiving through a second user interface presented on a second display (par 32: “… in practice there could be many mobile devices 16 in use at any given time, where the mobile device 16 could be distributed over a wide geographical area both within the geographical area of the grid 15 and external to the grid 15”; par 54: “… the mobile GUI 14 is used to visualize the current state of the grid 15, to remotely initiate simulations on high performance computing platform 12B and to visualize the results of the simulations…”; par 9: “… The computing platform is configured to execute an electrical power grid simulator program and further comprises a second interface configured to communicate with at least one user device through a communication layer…” NOTE: at least one user device implies more than one display because there are more than one user devices each having a display. Par 97: “… with this invention the user can interact with simulations that are currently running (enabled by high speed computation, massive parallelism and flexible user interface”), third input for a third scenario; performing a third simulation by modeling the third input for the third scenario in the virtual model of the electrical grid; and modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting one or more visualizations of the results of the first simulation compared to the results of the third simulation” (par 59: “if it is desired to modify the parameters of any of the generators or loads, tapping on them opens a parameter modification/editing sidebar such as the one shown in FIG. 3); Performing a second simulation by modeling the input for the second scenario in the virtual model of the electrical grid; and modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting one or more visualizations of the results of the simulation compared to the results of the second simulation” (par 106: “the embodiments of this invention also encompass a ‘differential’ visualization mode of operation where what is displayed to the user represents a difference between two (or more) simulation results that represent a difference between two (or more) grid states. For example, one simulation result may be a historical (stored) simulation result while another simulation result may be a current simulation result. The results are compared and what is visualized is the difference between the simulation results… this mode of operation enables the user to readily compare a difference between the two or more grid states and the effect on the operational status of the grid structure…”).
Chainer_2013 also makes obvious “third input for a third scenario; performing a third simulation by modeling the third input for the third scenario in the virtual model of the electrical grid; and modifying the user interface to include graphics depicting one or more visualizations of the results of the first simulation compared to the results of the third simulation” (FIG. 12 clearly illustrates 4 simulations displayed side-by-side for comparison. Par 20: FIG. 12 shows data comparing single and dual loop deigns”; par 58: ”FIG. 12 shows the cooling power usage comparison for these 4 possible cases…”)
Claim 20. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “Wherein: the first scenario comprises a particular grid configuration, and performing the first simulation of the first scenario comprises: adjusting the virtual model of the electrical grid to represent the particular grid configuration; and determining characteristics of the adjusted virtual model of the electrical grid under various simulated conditions” (Par 40: “… the simulator can perform multistep simulations in which certain resulting values are compared to allowable bounds, and out-of-bound quantities are assumed to lead to component failure or operation mode changes, for example… the generator going off line… the branch to trip and go out of service. After adjusting the model to reflect any failures or operation mode changes, the simulation can be run again… by continuing to iterate in this manner with changing loads and generation over time, studies of cascading failures may be performed…”; par 43: “… GUI 14 allows the user to choose whether single or multiple starting scenarios are to be used… automatically generate multiple scenarios the user picks an available starting scenario, the desired number of scenarios to be generated, and any available rules for generating multiple scenarios. For example, a rule could be to start with an initial scenario, and for each successive scenario, increase the active power demand on every load by 1%, such as might be experienced as air conditioners progressively com on line during a heat wave…”; par 46: “after setting up the initial scenario(s), the user selects whether a one-step or multi-step simulation by the power grid simulator 12A is desired. A one-step simulation computes the resulting state of the power gird 15 for each of the single or multiple initial scenarios. A multi-step simulation can begin in the same manner, but then checks for out-of-bounds values, modifies the power grid model to reflect unit failures, and re-runs the simulation. This process can iterate…”).
Claim 21. Enenkel_2018 makes obvious “Wherein: the electrical grid is a real-world electrical grid, and the simulation for the baseline scenario is performed using operational data generated by grid sensors configured to measure parameters of the real-world electrical grid” (FIG. 1B item 15 “SMART GRID” “smart appliances” “smart meter” “other sensors”; par 32: “FIG. 1B shows… the smart grid 15 includes various sensors and related equipment to monitor the operation of the distribution grid including intelligent electronic devices (IEDs), remote terminal units (RTU) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system… phase measurement units (PMSs), phase data concentrators (PDCs) and various smart applicants, meters and the like…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187