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 .
Claims 1-3 are currently pending. Claims 1-3 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract uses legal phraseology. See paragraph immediately above.
The abstract contains reference to the drawings, particularly the reference numerals and/or labels.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1-3, the preambles contain portions in all capitalization and quotation marks. The capitalization of every letter is not considered grammatically appropriate. The quotation marks appear unnecessary.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Lines 10-11 of Claim 1, Line 3 of Claim 2, and Line 3 of Claim 3 recites “characterized in that”. It is not necessary to bold this phrase. Also, the use of underlining is supposed to be an annotation which indicates added subject matter in amendments (see 37 C.F.R. 1.121 (c)). Applicant is suggested to remove the bold and underline, since these are originally presented claims.
Regarding Claim 3, the recited method steps a) through g) all have the first letter capitalized. The capitalization is not necessary, since claims are constructed as single sentences.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-3, the claims contain various usages of reference numerals, such as “actuators (1)” in Line 3 of Claim 1. While this is not considered improper, the usage of reference characters generally does not affect the scope of the claims (see MPEP 608.01(m)). As such, the structure of the claims is unclear, since the claims heavily rely upon the reference characters to provide structure. For example, Lines 3-5 of Claim 1 essentially recite “a set of actuators, equipped with at least two actuators and, which comprise chambers and and chambers and, respectively”. Applicant should amend Claims 1-3 such that all instances in which the reference characters are relied upon for structure include structural language as well. For example, Lines 3-4 of Claim 1 may recite “a set of actuators (1), equipped with at least two actuators comprising a first actuator (1A) and a second actuator (1B)”. All other recitations of “actuator (1A)”, such as in Claim 2, and “actuator (1B)” would then be required to be amended as well to recite “first actuator (1A)” and “second actuator (1B)”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim appears to intend to depend upon Claim 1. However, it also introduces limitations that are already recited in Claim 1, making it unclear if the limitations are in reference to the same structure in Claim 1 or requiring additional ones. For instance, the “set of emergency valves”, “pneumatic valves”, “actuators”, chambers”, “flow rate regulating valves”, “plunger”, “linear transducer” all appear to be recited in Claim 1. It is additionally unclear if the recited “set of turbine blades” is the same as the “set of blades of an energy generation turbine” in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Line 31 recites “safe position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously recited. Additionally, The term “safe” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 3, the preamble is unclear if it properly includes all the limitations of the claim in which it depends. The preamble recites “THE ‘AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM APPLIED TO ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS IN HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS’, which uses the automation system (S) of claim 1”. Meanwhile, Claim 1 recites an “’AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM APPILED TO ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS IN HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS’”. For proper dependency, Claim 3 must contain reference to the whole ’AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM APPILED TO ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS IN HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS’ of Claim 1. It is unclear if the “automation system (S)” is the same as the ’AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM APPILED TO ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS IN HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS’. If it is not the same, Claim 3 would be considered failing to include all the limitations of Claim 1, since it would only require the automation system (S). If it is the same, it is unclear why the claim recites the system which uses itself.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, the art of record does not expressly teach the total automation and control system applied to energy generation systems in hydraulic plants as required of the claim. As such, the systems operate differently than the claimed invention and would not achieve the function of providing greater safety and performance for hydroelectric plants noted in paragraph [0035] of the Specification filed October 20, 2025.
Helbig et al. (US 2014/0026969 A1) teaches a fail-safe actuation system that fails to recite the pneumatic valves, emergency valves, flow rate regulating valves being connected as required of Claim 1. For instance, there is only one actuator (2) in the illustrated embodiment of Figure 1. Thus, there is no emergency valve which simultaneously feeds the chambers (11A) and (10B) of the actuators (1A) and (1B) as claimed.
Barnes et al. (US 4,348,155 A) Figure 1 teaches an actuation system wherein valves (105, 110) simultaneous feed chambers of actuators (30, 35). However, they fail to meet the requirements of the claimed emergency valves because they feed into the chambers of the same actuators. As such, although use of systems with valves and actuators is known in the art, the art of record does not expressly teach the valves in their arrangements and feeding actuators in the manner required of the claim.
Claim 2 subsequently depends upon Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights