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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-15, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlueter et al. (US 2006/0030972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlueter meets the claimed method comprising: executing contingency analysis by simulating operation of an electrical power system under different contingencies (simulated single contingencies are then applied to the electrical power system, see [0006]) that reflect an individual outage of different respective pieces of equipment in the electrical power system; (Qgenoutage is the reactive power output from a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 in response to the contingency as described in step 36 above, Fig. 6, [0053]) for each of the different contingencies, (In step 54, reactive remaining exhaustion factors are calculated for each of the agents for a specific contingency [0055]) quantifying how impactful the individual outage of the respective piece of equipment would be across multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance, (Fig. 6, step 56) by: for each of the multiple dimensions, calculating a dimension-specific score which characterizes performance of the electrical power system in that dimension according to the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to performance of the electrical power system in the dimension according to baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (the exhaustion factor for an agent represents the percentage of its base case reactive reserves the particular agent has remaining after being required to provide reactive power in response to the contingency, see [0056]) and synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment; (The process for performing the multiple contingency analysis is outlined with respect to FIGS. 7b and 7c. In step 134, for each single contingency, the impact or exhaustive factor on the reactive reserves of each agent or each set of N agents is determined, [0052]) and based on the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, controlling, or assisting with controlling, operation of the electrical power system. (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance include two or more of: an operational standards dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system complies with or violates defined operational standards; (a security constraint is a constraint on the operation of a utility that, if satisfied, will prevent a thermal overload voltage limit violation, or prevent a voltage instability, voltage collapse or blackout from occurring in response to one or more contingencies [0101]) a service dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system is able or unable to provide electrical power service to customers; a price dimension reflecting market pricing of electrical power provided by the electrical power system; (Schlueter teaches the Locational Marginal Prices are ATC constraints in the calculation [0104]) and/or a stability dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system is stable or unstable. (Schlueter teaches voltage instability region is determined, [0045])
Regarding claim 3, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance include an operational standards dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system complies with or violates defined operational standards, (a security constraint is a constraint on the operation of a utility that, if satisfied, will prevent a thermal overload voltage limit violation, or prevent a voltage instability, voltage collapse or blackout from occurring in response to one or more contingencies [0101]) wherein the defined operational standards comprise standards defined for bus voltage limits, branch current limits, equipment power ratings, and/or stability margins, (This terminal point of the artificial loading curve is defined as the point of maximum load for a specific bus and represents a point on the boundary of the operating region where voltage collapse, voltage instability or local blackout would occur [0043]) wherein, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the dimension-specific score for the operational standards dimension comprises calculating the dimension-specific score as a function of one or more of: a total number of violations of the defined operational standards resulting from the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency; (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives) and/or a magnitude of each violation of the defined operational standards resulting from the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency. (The agents that have extremely negative measures indicate regions that incur very large reactive losses compared to the reactive reserves associated with the agent and thus quickly cause a lack of solution when a small percentage of the outage is removed [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance include a service dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system is able or unable to provide electrical power service to customers, (Schluter teaches the desired result of determining the impact of the double contingency on agents is to define the predicted control region that may be composed of agents in one or more family lines in one or more families, [0059]. Schlueter further teaches an algorithm for large systems to determine reactive reserves remaining, see [0097]) wherein, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the dimension-specific score for the service dimension comprises calculating the dimension-specific score as a function of one or more of: how much less electrical power the electrical power system is able to provide to customers according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to how much electrical power the electrical power system is able to provide to customers according to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (Fig. 6, In step 52, Qgenbase and Qmax are summed for all generators 10 and reserves 18 for each agent; and, Qgenoutage is summed for all generators 10 of each agent for each specific contingency, see [0054], Qgenoutage is the reactive power output from a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 in response to the contingency as described in step 36 above [0053]) and/or how many and/or which one or more types of customers are unable to be provided electrical power from the electrical power system according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to how many and/or which one or more types of customers are able to be provided electrical power from the electrical power system according to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency. (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives).
Regarding claim 5, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance include a price dimension reflecting market pricing of electrical power provided by the electrical power system, (Schlueter teaches the Locational Marginal Prices are ATC constraints in the calculation [0104]) wherein, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the dimension-specific score for the price dimension comprises calculating the dimension-specific score as a function of one or more of: for each of one or more locations served by the electrical power system, how much a locational marginal price of electrical power provided by the electrical power system increases for the location according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives) how many locations served by the electrical power system see at least a threshold increase in a locational marginal price of electrical power provided by the electrical power system according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; an estimated cost that would be incurred by an operator of the electrical power system to implement control measures to mitigate, for one or more locations, an increase in a locational marginal price of electrical power provided by the electrical power system according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (The contingency measure and agent measure are proportional to load and thus are an economic measure proportional to dollars lost per blackout or dollars lost for outages that cause blackout due in part to agent i. If the Contingency measure is multiplied by the probability of the outage, one has a risk measure [0100]) and/or an estimated loss of revenue suffered by an operator of the electrical power system attributable to occurrence of the contingency. (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives).
Regarding claim 6, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance include a stability dimension reflecting an extent to which the electrical power system is stable or unstable, wherein, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the dimension-specific score for the stability dimension comprises calculating the dimension-specific score as a function of one or more of: how much more generating capacity the electrical power system must have in reserve to meet a stability target according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, (The exhaustion factor for an agent represents the percentage of its base case reactive reserves the particular agent has remaining after being required to provide reactive power in response to the contingency [0056]) relative to how much generating capacity the electrical power system must have in reserve to meet the stability target according to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (Qgenbase is the base reactive power output of a particular generator 10 or reactive reserve 18. This base reactive power output represents the amount of reactive power that a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 outputs when no contingency or outage is simulated [0053]) and/or an estimated cost that would be incurred by an operator of the electrical power system to implement control measures to mitigate an increase in generating capacity which the electrical power system must have in reserve to meet a stability target according to simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to the baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency. (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives).
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein, for each of the multiple dimensions, calculating the dimension-specific score for the dimension comprises: calculating a raw score for the dimension to characterize performance of the electrical power system in that dimension during the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, (genoutage represents the amount of reactive power output of the generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 in response to a specific contingency [0053]) relative to performance of the electrical power system in the dimension during baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; (Qgenbase is the base reactive power output of a particular generator 10 or reactive reserve 18. This base reactive power output represents the amount of reactive power that a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 outputs when no contingency or outage is simulated [0053]) and calculating the dimension-specific score for the dimension by normalizing the raw score for the dimension to fall within a dimension-agnostic range, wherein raw scores for different respective dimensions are normalized to fall within the same dimension-agnostic range. (The exhaustion factor for an agent represents the percentage of its base case reactive reserves the particular agent has remaining after being required to provide reactive power in response to the contingency [0056]. Examiner notes that the exhaustion factor is dimension-agnostic and normalized).
Regarding claim 8, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein, for each of the different contingencies, synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment comprises, for each of the different contingencies, (The process for performing the multiple contingency analysis is outlined with respect to FIGS. 7b and 7c. In step 134, for each single contingency, the impact or exhaustive factor on the reactive reserves of each agent or each set of N agents is determined, [0052]) calculating the unified criticality score for the piece of equipment as a function of a weighted combination of the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions. (Fig. 18, An aggregated postured control is selected for testing in step 446 and is tested for all contingencies that associated with any of the controls that are aggregated in step 448. If the aggregate postured control solves all of the contingencies then use the aggregate postured control for all of those contingencies [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein said controlling or assisting with controlling comprises making one or more decisions about how the electrical power system is to be controlled, or is recommended to be controlled, to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment. (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 11, wherein the one or more decisions comprises one or more decisions about whether and/or how to adjust one or more operational parameters of the electrical power system to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment. (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 12, wherein the one or more operational parameters of the electrical power system include one or more of: one or more parameters that govern load shedding by the electrical power system; one or more parameters that govern voltage and/or frequency regulation by the electrical power system; (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]). one or more parameters that govern energy storage by the electrical power system; one or more parameters that govern integration of renewable energy sources into the electrical power system; one or more parameters that govern participating by the electrical power system in a bulk energy market; one or more parameters that govern power flow control and network reconfiguration within the electrical power system; one or more parameters that govern the coordination between transmission and distribution systems within the electrical power system; and/or one of more parameters that govern congestion limits in line flows affecting market clearing prices. (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives).
Regarding claim 14, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 12, wherein said controlling or assisting with controlling comprises transmitting, displaying, or otherwise indicating to an operator of the electrical power system planned or recommended adjustments to the one or more operational parameters to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment. (From this information, system weaknesses can be determined and proposals as to load shedding, active power rescheduling or voltage rescheduling can be made to operators, [0038]. Examiner notes that Schlueter thus teaches the information is transmitted to an operator).
Regarding claim 15, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 12, wherein said controlling or assisting with controlling comprises implementing the one or more decisions by dynamically adjusting the one or more operational parameters. (From this information, system weaknesses can be determined and proposals as to load shedding, active power rescheduling or voltage rescheduling can be made to operators, [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, wherein said simulating comprises simulating operation of the electrical power system under the different contingencies according to one or more power system files that reflect: a topology of the electrical power system; a location of generation and loads with respect to the topology; and a location of the pieces of equipment with respect to the topology. (Examiner notes that “topology” is understood in light of the specification to be the location of equipment. Schlueter teaches , it is desirable to have a method of finding the geographic locations of the power system that are most vulnerable to collapse as a result of the single contingency. The single contingency ATC procedure outlined in Example 3 can determine the amount of loadshedding in a control region or in specific load pockets which will avert the emergency and restore normal operating conditions, [0116]).
Regarding claim 19, Schlueter meets the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of computing equipment, (The above-described process is a simulation based on applying artificial loads to a computer model, [0042]) cause the computing equipment to: execute contingency analysis by simulating operation of an electrical power system under different contingencies (simulated single contingencies are then applied to the electrical power system, see [0006]) that reflect an individual outage of different respective pieces of equipment in the electrical power system; (Qgenoutage is the reactive power output from a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 in response to the contingency as described in step 36 above, Fig. 6, [0053]) for each of the different contingencies, (In step 54, reactive remaining exhaustion factors are calculated for each of the agents for a specific contingency [0055]) quantify how impactful the individual outage of the respective piece of equipment would be across multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance, by: for each of the multiple dimensions, calculating a dimension-specific score which characterizes performance of the electrical power system in that dimension according to the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to performance of the electrical power system in the dimension according to baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency;(the exhaustion factor for an agent represents the percentage of its base case reactive reserves the particular agent has remaining after being required to provide reactive power in response to the contingency, see [0056]) and synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment; (The process for performing the multiple contingency analysis is outlined with respect to FIGS. 7b and 7c. In step 134, for each single contingency, the impact or exhaustive factor on the reactive reserves of each agent or each set of N agents is determined, [0052]) and based on the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, controlling, or assisting with controlling, operation of the electrical power system. (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]).
Regarding claim 20, Schlueter meets the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the stored instructions, when executed by one or more processors of computing equipment, (The above-described process is a simulation based on applying artificial loads to a computer model, [0042]) cause the computing equipment to: make one or more decisions about how the electrical power system is to be controlled, or is recommended to be controlled, to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, (Fig. 18, An aggregated postured control is selected for testing in step 446 and is tested for all contingencies that associated with any of the controls that are aggregated in step 448. If the aggregate postured control solves all of the contingencies then use the aggregate postured control for all of those contingencies [0076]) wherein the one or more decisions comprises one or more decisions about whether and/or how to adjust one or more operational parameters of the electrical power system to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment; and transmit, display, or otherwise indicate to an operator of the electrical power system planned or recommended adjustments to the one or more operational parameters to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, and/or implement the one or more decisions by dynamically adjusting the one or more operational parameters. (From this information, system weaknesses can be determined and proposals as to load shedding, active power rescheduling or voltage rescheduling can be made to operators, [0038]. Examiner notes that Schlueter thus teaches the information is transmitted to an operator and the operator makes adjustments).
Regarding claim 21, Schlueter meets the claimed computing equipment of an electrical power system, the computing equipment comprising: processing circuitry (The above-described process is a simulation based on applying artificial loads to a computer model, [0042]) configured to: execute contingency analysis by simulating operation of an electrical power system under different contingencies (simulated single contingencies are then applied to the electrical power system, see [0006]) that reflect an individual outage of different respective pieces of equipment in the electrical power system; (Qgenoutage is the reactive power output from a generator 10 or reactive reserve 18 in response to the contingency as described in step 36 above, Fig. 6, [0053]) for each of the different contingencies, (In step 54, reactive remaining exhaustion factors are calculated for each of the agents for a specific contingency [0055]) quantify how impactful the individual outage of the respective piece of equipment would be across multiple dimensions of the electrical power system's performance, by: for each of the multiple dimensions, calculating a dimension-specific score which characterizes performance of the electrical power system in that dimension according to the simulated operation of the electrical power system under the contingency, relative to performance of the electrical power system in the dimension according to baseline operation of the electrical power system without the contingency; and (the exhaustion factor for an agent represents the percentage of its base case reactive reserves the particular agent has remaining after being required to provide reactive power in response to the contingency, see [0056]) and synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment; (The process for performing the multiple contingency analysis is outlined with respect to FIGS. 7b and 7c. In step 134, for each single contingency, the impact or exhaustive factor on the reactive reserves of each agent or each set of N agents is determined, [0052]) and based on the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, controlling, or assisting with controlling, operation of the electrical power system. (Fig. 11-13 describe control of equipment for every contingency. These controls include unit commitment, voltage rescheduling and/or active power rescheduling of generators in the Predicted Control Region and/or load shedding (Emergency Control) on buses in load bearing agents (load pockets) in the Predicted Control Region, see [0007]).
Regarding claim 22, Schlueter meets the claimed computing equipment of claim 21, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: make one or more decisions about how the electrical power system is to be controlled, or is recommended to be controlled, to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, (Fig. 18, An aggregated postured control is selected for testing in step 446 and is tested for all contingencies that associated with any of the controls that are aggregated in step 448. If the aggregate postured control solves all of the contingencies then use the aggregate postured control for all of those contingencies [0076]). wherein the one or more decisions comprises one or more decisions about whether and/or how to adjust one or more operational parameters of the electrical power system to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment; and transmit, display, or otherwise indicate to an operator of the electrical power system planned or recommended adjustments to the one or more operational parameters to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment, and/or implement the one or more decisions by dynamically adjusting the one or more operational parameters. (From this information, system weaknesses can be determined and proposals as to load shedding, active power rescheduling or voltage rescheduling can be made to operators, [0038]. Examiner notes that Schlueter thus teaches the information is transmitted to an operator and the operator makes adjustments).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schlueter et al. (US 2006/0030972 A1) in view of Harza et al. (US 2017/0124666 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 8, but is silent on wherein, for each of the different contingencies, synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment comprises, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the unified criticality score for the piece of equipment as a function of the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions and also as a function of one or more of: a voltage class of the piece of equipment; or an electrical power rating of the piece of equipment.
Harza teaches generator static data (such as voltage and current rating, power ramp-up and ramp-down capability, resistance of the coil, etc.) and one or more reliability constraints are provided to the efficiency and reliability determination module 104, which provides output to the optimization module 108, [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the voltage and current rating of Harza with the contingency simulation of power equipment of Schlueter because it improves the simulation of the reliability determination that ensures the reliability of the grid, see Harza [0015].
Claim 10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schlueter et al. (US 2006/0030972 A1) in view of Nasle et al. (WO 2008/052042 A2).
Regarding claim 10, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein, for each of the different contingencies, synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment comprises, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the unified criticality score for the piece of equipment as a function of the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions and also as a function of one or more of: an age of the piece of equipment; an estimated cost to repair the piece of equipment and/or to access the piece of equipment for repair; availability of parts for the piece of equipment in inventory; an estimated duration of time required to repair the piece of equipment and/or an estimated duration of time required to order and receive a replacement of the piece of equipment; an availability of a temporary replacement for the piece of equipment to maintain operations while waiting for a permanent replacement for the piece of equipment; a frequency of past failures and/or historical reliability data for the piece of equipment; an extent of redundancy within the electrical power system for the piece of equipment.
Nasle meets the claimed wherein, for each of the different contingencies, synthesizing the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions into a unified criticality score for the piece of equipment comprises, for each of the different contingencies, calculating the unified criticality score for the piece of equipment as a function of the dimension-specific scores for the multiple dimensions and also as a function of one or more of: an age of the piece of equipment; an estimated cost to repair the piece of equipment and/or to access the piece of equipment for repair; availability of parts for the piece of equipment in inventory; an estimated duration of time required to repair the piece of equipment and/or an estimated duration of time required to order and receive a replacement of the piece of equipment; an availability of a temporary replacement for the piece of equipment to maintain operations while waiting for a permanent replacement for the piece of equipment; a frequency of past failures and/or historical reliability data (Nasle teaches other inputs can include failure rates, repair rates, and required availability of the system and of the various components [00168] for the piece of equipment; an extent of redundancy within the electrical power system for the piece of equipment. (Examiner notes the claim recites “one or more of” and the remaining limitations are alternatives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the measure of failure rates and repair rates of Nasle with the contingency simulation of power equipment of Schlueter because without aging data predictions become of little value as they are no longer reflective of the actual facility status and may lead to false conclusions, see [0010].
Regarding claim 16, Schlueter meets the claimed method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein said controlling or assisting with controlling comprises dynamically adjusting a graphical user interface of the operational control equipment of the electrical power system to account for the unified criticality scores for the pieces of equipment.
Nasle teaches real-time simulations performed in accordance with figure 18 can be communicated in step 1812 via a report, the information can be reported via a graphical user interface (thick or thin client) that illustrated the various components of the system in graphical format, see [00196]. If significant deviations are detected, decision engine 212 can also be configured to determine whether an alarm condition exists, activate the alarm and communicate the alarm to Human-Machine Interface (HMI) 214 for display in real-time via, e.g., thin client 128, see [0073]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the graphical user interface and alarm of Nasle with the contingency simulation of power equipment of Schlueter because it provides immediate information to operators.
Regarding claim 17, Schlueter as modified meets the claimed method of claim 16, wherein said dynamically adjusting comprises one or more of: adjusting a visual representation of one or more of the pieces of equipment on the graphical user interface to reflect the one or more respective unified criticality scores for the one or more of the pieces of equipment; or triggering an alert notification on the graphical user interface, wherein the alert notification is a notification of an event triggered by one or more of the unified criticality scores. (Nasle teaches If significant deviations are detected, decision engine 212 can also be configured to determine whether an alarm condition exists, activate the alarm and communicate the alarm to Human-Machine Interface (HMI) 214 for display in real-time via, e.g., thin client 128, see [0073]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holzer et al. (US 2023/0410228 A1) teaches [0034] As used in this disclosure, “limit” is a rated operating parameter of a power grid component, such as rated current for a transmission line (which can include both real and reactive power flow), or a kVA rating for a substation transformer. A “constraint” can be based on a limit, and can be expressed as an inequality, for example power flow in a particular branch should not exceed 30 MW. A “contingency” is a hypothetical state of the grid in which the topology or constraints of the grid have changed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights