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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a fluid density receiving module (corresponding in the instant application to 402), a fluid density receiving module (correspond in the instant application to 404), a period determination module (corresponding in the instant application to 410), a Young’s modulus temperature correction for density determination module (corresponding in the instant application to 414), a Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow determination module (corresponding in the instant application to 416), and a mass flow correction module (corresponding in the instant application to 418) in claims 9-16, a phase difference determination module (corresponding in the instant application to 408) in claim 11, a fluid pressure determination module (corresponding in the instant application to 406) in claim 12, an expansion temperature correction module (corresponding in the instant application to 412) in claim 13, and a system processor (corresponding in the instant application to 20b) in claims 17-24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 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, 9, and 17, the limitation “wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperatures” renders the claims unclear. It is not clear from the claimed limitations how a calibration is related to the claimed correcting, whether it is intended to be a part of the correcting process or is intended to be something that is or is not performed before the correcting process. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. As best understood from the disclosure, it is considered that any calibration would be before the method for correcting or otherwise separate from the method for correcting. This is the interpretation that will be used below.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, claims 10-16 depend from claim 9, and claims 18-24 depend from claim 17 which inherit these issues therefrom.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang et al., “Coriolis Mass Flow Measurement at Cryogenic Temperatures”, Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, cited on the IDS filed 12/12/2022, NPL cite 1).
As to claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a method for correcting a mass flow value
m
˙
measured using a Coriolis flow meter for temperature effects at a known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
below 0 C (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
(section 2.1 and 4);
receiving the known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
(section 2.1 and 4);
receiving a time period
T
p
(section 2.1, needed for equation 2);
determining a Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
based on the known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
, the known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
, and the time period
T
p
(section 2.1, last paragraph);
determining a Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
based on a temperature correction constant
k
and the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
(section 2.1, last paragraph); and
correcting the mass flow value
m
˙
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
(section 2.1, last paragraph and figure 7),
wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature (section 3, first paragraph; note that although a subzero calibration is mentioned in section 4, this is considered to be in order to compare the data of the model and not required for the model process itself being taught by Wang et al.).
As to claim 2, Wang et al. teaches wherein the time period
T
p
is determined based on a measured fluid density
ρ
i
n
d
i
c
(section 2.1, first paragraph).
As to claim 3, Wang et al. teaches further comprising: receiving a phase difference
∆
T
, and wherein determining the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further based on the phase difference
∆
T
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 5, Wang et al. teaches wherein the method further comprises:
determining an expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
(table 1),
and wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further determined based on the expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
based on a known temperature
t
e
m
p
r
e
f
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 6, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is between 0.8 and 1.2 (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 7, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is one (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 8, Wang et al. teaches wherein correcting a mass flow value
m
˙
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
further comprises: determining a mass error value
E
r
r
o
r
m
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass
T
F
y
M
(figure 7).
As to claim 9, Wang et al. teaches a system for correcting a mass flow value m measured using a Coriolis flow meter for temperature effects at a known fluid temperature temp below 0 C (see abstract), the system comprising:
a fluid density receiving module configured to receive a known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
(section 2.1 and 4 and section 2);
a fluid temperature receiving module configured to receive the known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
(section 2.1 and 4 and section 2);
a period determination module configured to receive a time period
T
p
(section 2.1, needed for equation 2);
a Young’s modulus temperature correction for density determination module configured to determine a Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
based on the known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
, the known fluid temperature temp, and the time period
T
p
(section 2.1, last paragraph);
a Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow determination module configured to determine a Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
based on a temperature correction constant
k
and the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
(
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2.1
,
l
a
s
t
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
)
; and
a mass flow correction module configured to correct the mass flow value
m
˙
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
(section 2.1, last paragraph and figure 7),
wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature (it is considered that the limitation “wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature” is an intended use or product by process limitation that does not change the structure of the system for correcting a mass flow; section 3, first paragraph; note that although a subzero calibration is mentioned in section 4, this is considered to be in order to compare the data of the model and not required for the model process itself being taught by Wang et al.).
As to claim 10, Wang et al. teaches wherein the fluid density receiving module is further configured to determine a measured fluid density
ρ
i
n
d
i
c
, and the period determination module is further configured to determine the time period
T
p
based on the measured fluid density
ρ
i
n
d
i
c
(section 2.1, first paragraph).
As to claim 11, Wang et al. teaches further comprising: a phase difference determination module configured to determine a phase difference
∆
T
, and wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density determination module is further configured to determine the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
based on the phase difference
∆
T
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 13, Wang et al. teaches wherein the system further comprises: an expansion temperature correction module configured to determine an expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
based on a known temperature
t
e
m
p
r
e
f
(table 1), and wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density module is further configured to determine the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
based on the expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 14, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is between 0.8 and 1.2 (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 15, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is one (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 16, Wang et al. teaches wherein the mass flow correction module is further configured to determine a mass error value
E
r
r
o
r
m
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass
T
F
y
M
(figure 7).
As to claim 17, Wang et al. teaches a meter electronics (section 2, first paragraph) for correcting a mass flow value
m
˙
measured using a meter assembly of a Coriolis flow meter for temperature effects at a known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
below 0 C (see abstract), the meter electronics comprising a system processor configured to:
receive a known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
(section 2.1 and 4);
receive the known fluid temperature
t
e
m
p
(section 2.1 and 4);
receive a time period
T
p
(section 2.1, needed for equation 2);
determine a Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
based on the known fluid density
ρ
r
e
f
, the known fluid temperature temp, and the time period
T
p
(section 2.1, last paragraph)
determine a Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
based on a temperature correction constant
k
and Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
(
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2.1
,
l
a
s
t
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
)
;
and
correct the mass flow value m using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
(section 2.1, last paragraph and figure 7),
wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature (it is considered that the limitation “wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature” is an intended use or product by process limitation that does not change the meter electronics; section 3, first paragraph; note that although a subzero calibration is mentioned in section 4, this is considered to be in order to compare the data of the model and not required for the model process itself being taught by Wang et al.).
As to claim 18, Wang et al. teaches wherein the time period
T
p
is determined based on a measured fluid density
ρ
i
n
d
i
c
(section 2.1, first paragraph).
As to claim 19, Wang et al. teaches wherein system processor is further configured to receive a phase difference
∆
T
, and
wherein determining the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further based on the phase difference
∆
T
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 21, Wang et al. teaches wherein the system processor is further configured to:
determine an expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
(table 1),
and wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further determined based on the expansion temperature correction for density
T
F
e
based on a known temperature
t
e
m
p
r
e
f
(section 2.1, last paragraph).
As to claim 22, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is between 0.8 and 1.2 (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 23, Wang et al. teaches wherein the temperature correction constant
k
is one (section 2.1 shows k as 1).
As to claim 24, Wang et al. teaches wherein correcting a mass flow value
m
˙
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass flow
T
F
y
M
further comprises: determining a mass error value
E
r
r
o
r
m
using the Young’s modulus temperature correction for mass
T
F
y
M
(figure 7).
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 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Wang et al., “Coriolis Mass Flow Measurement at Cryogenic Temperatures”, Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, cited on the IDS filed 12/12/2022, NPL cite 1).
As to claims 4, 12, and 20, Wang et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively, and further comprising receiving a fluid pressure
P
(section 4, paragraph 2 teaches the variation of the pressure in the system from 5.6 to 7.4 bar, which is considered to be measured and received),
Wang et al. does not teach further comprising: wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further based on the fluid pressure
P
.
It is considered that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to further calculate adjustments based on variation in fluid pressure in order to reduce error in the calculation further.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang et al. to have wherein the Young’s modulus temperature correction for density
T
F
y
D
is further based on the fluid pressure
P
in order to further reduce error in the calculations with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim interpretation presented in the previous action and above, the claim interpretation section presents the interpretation of the language considered to invoke the provisions of 112(f). As this interpretation is based on the language used in the claims, the above interpretation is maintained.
With respect to the arguments presented on pages 9-12 are persuasive and it is considered that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
With respect to the argument on page 13 that Wang et al. “teaches correcting mass flow rates using in part a difference in temperature from a reference temperature”, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using a different method for correcting mass flow rates) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is considered that Wang et al. teaches the calibration of the mass flow meter at non sub-zero temperatures (section 3, first paragraph). Although a subzero calibration is mentioned in section 4, this is considered to be in order to compare the data of the model and not required for the model process itself being taught by Wang et al.. Further, for the apparatus claims, it is considered that the limitation “wherein the Coriolis flow meter is not calibrated at sub-zero temperature” is an intended use or product by process limitation that does not change the structure of the system for correcting a mass flow or the meter electronics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853