DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because it is dependent on the cancelled claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Previous objection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 16 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determining tuples which each contain values of the at least two physical parameters and an associated value of the condition parameter, assigning the tuples in each case to a value range of the at least two physical parameters, and forming a reference value of the condition parameter for this value range of the at least one physical parameter using the value of the condition parameter of the tuple when no valid reference value of the condition parameter for this value range is present, or comparing the value of the condition parameter of the tuple with the reference value when a reference value of the condition parameter for this value range is present; and generating a finding on the basis of the result of the comparison, determining an error condition of the measuring tube or the oscillator when the comparison exceeds a predetermined deviation of the value of the condition parameter from the reference value, wherein a ratio of an oscillation amplitude of the oscillator to an exciter signal for exciting the oscillations of the oscillator at least one monitoring frequency is included in the determination of the condition parameter, . wherein the ratio between the monitoring frequency and a current resonant frequency of the oscillator is given by a constant factor” are abstract ideas, as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “measurement sensor being installed at a measuring point and comprising at least one oscillator excited to oscillate, which has at least one measuring tube for conveying the medium, wherein a condition parameter of the condition is dependent upon at least one further physical parameter of the medium conveyed in the measuring tube or of the oscillator and method are carried out by a measuring and operating circuit of the measurement sensor or a superordinate unit in communication with the measurement sensor,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. Notably, the claims do not even recite what the physical parameters are or what a condition parameter is, and also do not identify what the measurement sensor is. The claims additionally recite “taking action relative to the measurement sensor in response to the error condition,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, recited at high level of generality. The claims do not improve the functioning of the measurement sensor, measuring tube or the oscillator; rather, the claims determine the error condition. The claims also do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining an error condition of the measuring tube or the oscillator. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “measurement sensor being installed at a measuring point and comprising at least one oscillator excited to oscillate, which has at least one measuring tube for conveying the medium, wherein a condition parameter of the condition is dependent upon at least one further physical parameter of the medium conveyed in the measuring tube or of the oscillator, and method are carried out by a measuring and operating circuit of the measurement sensor or a superordinate unit in communication with the measurement sensor” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to data collection activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “taking action relative to the measurement sensor in response to the error condition,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, recited at high level of generality that is also well-understood, routine and conventional, and that is also applying the abstract idea without a particular end use (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674). As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patten et al., US-PGPUB 2007/0028663 (hereinafter Patten) (cited by the Applicant) in view of Alves et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0276451 (hereinafter Alves) and Scherrer, US-PGPUB 2013/0160565 (hereinafter Scherrer)
Regarding Claim 16. Patten discloses monitoring a condition of a measurement sensor for detecting the density or mass flow rate of a medium using the measurement sensor, said measurement sensor being installed at a measuring point and comprising at least one oscillator excited to oscillate, which has at least one measuring tube for conveying the medium, wherein a condition parameter of the condition is dependent upon at least one further physical parameter of the medium conveyed in the measuring tube or of the oscillator, wherein the condition parameter characterizes the condition of the measurement sensor, wherein the at least two further physical parameters include a temperature, a density, or a pressure (Fig. 1; Abstract; Paragraphs [0011]-[0014], temperature, density, pressure; Paragraphs [0083]-[0084]; [0088]), comprises: wherein the following method steps are carried out by a measuring and operating circuit of the measurement sensor or a superordinate unit in communication with the measurement sensor (Figs. 1, 2), determining tuples which contain values of the at least two physical parameter and an associated value of the condition parameter (Abstract; Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]; density, temperature, pressure and associated flow calibration factors; Paragraphs [0091]; [0102]-[0103]; Figs. 3, 7-8; Claims 11-13)
assigning the tuples in each case to a value range of the at least two physical parameters (Paragraph [0103]; Fig. 7; Claims 11-13); and
forming a reference value of the condition parameter for this value range of the at least one physical parameter using the value of the condition parameter of the tuple when no valid reference value of the condition parameter for this value range is present (Paragraphs [0105]-[0111], [0113]-[0116]; Figs. 9 and 11), and comparing the value of the condition parameter of the tuple with the reference value when a reference value of the condition parameter for this value range is present, and generating a finding on the basis of the result of the comparison, wherein generating the finding includes determining an error condition of the measuring tube or the oscillator when the comparison exceeds a predetermined deviation of the value of the condition parameter from the reference value (Figs. 10-11; Paragraphs [0111]-[0112], outside of the control limits, excessive deviation due to corrosion, erosion or product buildup in the measuring tube Paragraph [0007]; Paragraph [0117]),
taking action relative to the measurement sensor in response to the error condition (Fig. 10 and 11, notify user), wherein the condition parameter is configured to react to accretion, abrasion, wherein the condition parameter is configured to depend upon at least one modal bending stiffness of the oscillator (Paragraphs [0002], [0086]-[0087]), and also discloses accretion, abrasion and/or corrosion in the measuring tube (Paragraphs [0007], [0095], [0112])
Patten does not explicitly disclose the condition parameter is configured to depend upon at least one modal bending stiffness of the oscillator, wherein the modal bending stiffness depends on accretion, abrasion and/or corrosion in the measuring tube, and does not disclose wherein a ratio of an oscillation amplitude of the oscillator to an exciter signal for exciting the oscillations of the oscillator at least one monitoring frequency is included in the determination of the condition parameter, wherein the ratio between the monitoring frequency and a current resonant frequency of the oscillator is given by a constant factor.
Alves discloses a mode bending stiffness due to erosion, corrosion in fluid tubes in a vibrating meter (Abstract; Paragraph [0084], [0002]; [0033]-[0036]; Figs. 1-2)
Scherrer disclose monitoring oscillation characteristics in a Coriolis flow measuring device (Abstract; Fig. 2), including least one condition parameter that depends upon the quality level of the at least one oscillator, wherein a ratio of an oscillation amplitude of the oscillator to an exciter signal for exciting the oscillations of the oscillator at least one monitoring frequency is included in the determination of the condition parameter (Paragraph [0030]-[0031], exciter current) , wherein the ratio between the monitoring frequency and a current resonant frequency of the oscillator is given by a constant factor (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], ratio of excitation frequency and resonant frequency ; Paragraph [0007]; Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]; [0059], [0005]-[0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Alves and Scherrer in Patten and have least one condition parameter depends upon the quality level of the at least one oscillator, wherein a ratio of an oscillation amplitude of the oscillator to an exciter signal for exciting the oscillations of the oscillator at least one monitoring frequency is included in the determination of the condition parameter, wherein the ratio between the monitoring frequency and a current resonant frequency of the oscillator is given by a constant factor, so as to accurately detect flow characteristics.
Regarding Claim 18. Patten discloses the condition parameter depends upon at least three physical parameters of the medium conveyed in the measuring tube (Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]; density, temperature, pressure and associated flow calibration factors);
wherein the determined tuples respectively comprise current values of at least the three physical parameters and an associated current value of the condition parameter (Paragraph [0103]; Fig. 7; Claims 11-13); and
wherein the tuples are assigned to a field in an at least three-dimensional value range matrix of the at least three physical parameters (Paragraphs [0015]; [0102]; [0103], three-dimensional portrayal of the parameters; Paragraph [0114])
Regarding Claim 19. Patten discloses the valid reference values of the condition parameter for a value range or field of the value range matrix correspond in each case to the first detected value of the condition parameter for this value range or this field (Paragraph [0103]; Fig. 7; Claims 11-13);
Regarding Claim 20. Patten discloses the valid reference values of the condition parameter for a value range or field of the value range matrix are in each case formed by averaging over N first values of the condition parameter for this value range or this field (Paragraph [0105], average or mean to be used as reference values)
Regarding Claim 21. Patten discloses in addition to the reference value, a measure for the dispersion of the first N values of the condition parameter, wherein a deviation of the current value of the condition parameter from the reference value is compared with the dispersion in order to generate a finding on the basis of the result of the comparison (Claims 1-5).
Regarding Claim 22. Although Patten does not explicitly disclose the value range not less than 5K, it would have been obvious to do so, based on design criteria and user preference)
Regarding Claim 23. Although Patten does not explicitly disclose the value range not less than 50 kg/m, it would have been obvious to do so, based on design criteria and user preference)
Regarding Claim 24. Although Patten does not explicitly disclose the value range not less than 0.5 MPa, it would have been obvious to do so, based on design criteria and user preference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the updated rejection.
With respect to the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of monitoring the condition of the measurement sensor by determining any error condition using a combination of mental process and mathematical concept. Meanwhile, the additional elements directed to data collection activity are recited, but at high level of generality. This also is the evidence that the focus of the claimed invention is not in the measuring aspects, but rather on implementation of the abstract idea using tuples and formation of reference values in determining the error condition. In other words, additional elements are insignificant data collection activity, and any improvement of the claimed invention is really in the identified abstract idea itself. However, as had been stated previously, the new or improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and not an improvement under the practical application guideline. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights