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 .
The amendment filed on May 18, 2026 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea of “compare the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value” (mathematical process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processing system/meter electronics) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
A sensor assembly performs sensing which is directed an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A sensor assembly performs sensing is a well-understood, routine, and conventional feature known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 and their respective dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Greco (US 2020/0249063) in view of KR 102042009 (KR ‘009).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Greco discloses a meter electronics (20) and method (Fig. 2) configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value (zero offset based on measured flow rate, the meter electronics (20) comprising:
an interface (301) communicatively coupled to a sensor assembly (10) containing a fluid (paragraph 0038, lines 1-3); and
a processing system (310) communicatively coupled to the interface (301) (Fig. 3), the processing system (301) being configured to measure a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly (step 240; measured parameters correspond to zero offset values if the parameters are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 1-3) and compare the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value (comparing the parameters to the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9) to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value (to determine a true no flow measurement, paragraph 0059, lines 7-8).
Greco does not disclose the measured zero-flow values being within a band representing a zero-stability value.
KR ‘009 discloses a measured zero-flow values being within a band representing a zero-stability value (page 8, paragraph 6, lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Greco with a measured zero-flow values being
within a band representing a zero-stability value as disclosed by KR ‘009 for the purpose of providing optimum zero-flow accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, Greco further discloses a vibratory meter (5) configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value (Fig. 2), the vibratory meter (5) comprising: the sensor assembly (10) and the meter electronics (20).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Greco discloses determine a plurality of difference values between the plurality of zero-flow values and the reference zero-flow value (comparing measurements with corresponding ranges to determine that the measurements, while different, are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Greco discloses the bias indicator is a central tendency value of the plurality of difference values (no flow measurements have differences within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9) and a reliability indicator of the central tendency value (flow calibration is along zero offset/no flow measurements, accordingly, the no flow measurements are reliable/accurate, paragraph 0005, lines 15-16; paragraph 0006, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Greco discloses the reliability indicator of the central tendency value is a dispersion value of the central tendency value (no flow measurements are dispersion values that are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Greco discloses compare the bias indicator to a bias indicator reliability threshold value (no flow measurements are compared with corresponding ranges to be determined that they are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
Prior Art Note
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a meter electronics and method configured to detect a measurement bias of a reference zero-flow value comprising the bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value comprises a signum ratio of the plurality of difference values (claims 3, 10, 17) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18,2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “when the claims are considered as a whole, they are directed to a specific technological improvement in vibratory meter zero verification - namely, an improved technique for detecting whether a factory reference zero- flow value introduces an unacceptable measurement bias under actual process conditions.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims do not recite “detecting whether a factory reference zero- flow value introduces an unacceptable measurement bias under actual process conditions”. For example, claim 1 recites “… measure a plurality of zero-flow
values of the sensor assembly (10) … the measured zero flow values being within a
band representing a zero-stability value. Accordingly, the claim does not recite “a specific technological improvement in vibratory meter zero verification”.
Applicants further argue “independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (as amended) recite measuring a plurality of zero- flow values of the sensor assembly while those values are within a band representing a zero-stability value. This limitation to the independent claims ensures that the measurements reflect valid real-world zero-flow conditions of the physical sensor assembly (see specification 11 [0057]-[0062], FIG. 6). This is a concrete, process-specific condition that ensures the measurements are valid for zero verification.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims do not recite controlling the values such that they are within a band representing a zero-stability value. Examiner interprets the values “to just happen” to be within a band representing a zero-stability value. There is nothing recited in the claims that ensures the measurements reflect valid real-world zero-flow conditions of the physical sensor assembly.
Applicants further argue “additionally, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 also recite determining a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value, which reveals systematic directional or magnitude errors that conventional zero-verification tolerances (see FIG. 5) would miss.
Examiner’s position is that determining a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value is an abstract idea because it involves an evaluation to determine a bias indicator. Once the bias indicator is determined, the systematic directional or magnitude errors that conventional zero-verification tolerances are revealed, what happens? For example, is there a practical application that corrects the error/bias?
Applicants further argue “this combination is not a generic mathematical concept performed on a computer. It is a specific solution to a specific problem in vibratory meter technology: factory zero-flow values can shift after installation due to mounting stresses, temperature effects, and process conditions, yet conventional zero-verification tolerances (see FIG. 5 and paragraphs [0003]- [0007], [0057]-[0062] of the specification) are often too loose or unsuitable for a particular installation. The claimed invention provides a practical way to detect bias that would otherwise cause unacceptable flow measurement errors in real-world operation. See FIG. 6 (zero- verification graph showing distribution of zero-values) and paragraphs [0060]-[0062].”
Examiner’s position is that a practical application is missing from the claims. For example, once the bias is detected, what meaningful application is applied to prevent the “unacceptable flow measurement errors in real-world operation”?
Applicants further argue “the sensor assembly (10) is not mere data gathering - it is the core physical component whose vibrational response (pick-off signals 165l, 165r) under controlled zero-flow conditions (within the zero-stability band) is being analyzed in a new way (e.g., to improve the ongoing accuracy and reliability of mass flow and density measurements (paragraphs [0035]-[0047], [0060]-[0062], FIGS. 2-3, 6)).”
Examiner’s position is that the sensor assembly described in the specification is not recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites “a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly”.
Applicants further argue “[t]he processing system (402) applies the claimed bias-detection technique (including signum ratio in dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 and/or dispersion analysis) to determine whether the reference zero-flow value remains valid for ongoing mass flow rate and density calculations (see equation [1] and paragraph [0048] and operational routine 410).”
Examiner’s position is that the processing system described in the specification is not recited in the claims, see, e.g., claim 1.
Applicants further argue “[w]hen the bias indicator exceeds the reliability threshold (claims 7, 14, 21), the meter can flag the reference, trigger a recalibration, or disable use of the inaccurate baseline - directly improving meter performance in the field.”
Examiner’s position is that trigger a recalibration may be a meaningful application. However, it is not recited in the claims (e.g., see claim 1).
Applicants further argue “the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific use of zero-flow measurements constrained to the zero-stability band, and its use in evaluating the continued validity of a reference zero-flow value is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the vibratory meter art.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims do not recite “specific use of zero-flow measurements constrained to the zero-stability band”. For example, claim 1 recites the measured zero-flow values being within a band representing a zero-stability value. The measured zero-flow values are not constrained to the zero-stability band. Further, the claims do not recite “evaluating the continued validity of a reference zero-flow value” (e.g., see claim 1).
Applicants further argue “determination of a bias indicator (particularly the signum ratio of claims 3, 10, and 17) is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner's own Prior Art Note (page 10 of the Office Action) confirms that the signum ratio bias indicator "is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record." Greco does not teach or suggest these elements in combination.”
Examiner’s position, as discussed above, is that determination of a bias indicator is directed to an abstract idea. Further, signum ratio of claims 3, 10, and 17 is also directed to an abstract idea. While the claimed abstract idea may have no prior art rejections, it has been held that "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” (see Synopsys).
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicants argue “Greco fails to teach or suggest measuring "a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly" and comparing that plurality "to a reference zero-flow value to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value," wherein "the measured zero-flow values [are] within a band representing a zero-stability value" (as now recited in all independent claims).”
Examiner’s position is that, as discussed above, Greco discloses the processing system (301) being configured to measure a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly (step 240; measured parameters correspond to zero offset values if the parameters are within the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 1-3) and compare the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value (comparing the parameters to the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9).
KR 102042009 (KR ‘009) discloses "the measured zero-flow values [are] within a band representing a zero-stability value" (page 8, paragraph 6, lines 2-4).
Applicants further argue “[i]nstead, Greco compares a measured flow rate to a low flow threshold (not to a pre- existing reference zero-flow value) and, only if operational parameters are within ranges, uses the measured flow rate to replace the zero offset entirely.”
Examiner’s position is that Greco, by measuring parameters corresponding to zero offset values if the parameters are within the corresponding ranges (paragraph 0059, lines 1-3), Greco teaches measuring a plurality of zero-flow values of the sensor assembly.
Applicants further argue “Greco never evaluates bias of an existing reference zero-flow value, nor does it determine any "bias indicator" (signum ratio, central tendency with reliability/dispersion, or otherwise).”
Examiner’s position is that Greco discloses comparing the plurality of zero-flow values to a reference zero-flow value (comparing the parameters to the corresponding ranges, paragraph 0059, lines 4-9) to determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value (to determine a true no flow measurement, paragraph 0059, lines 7-8). Accordingly, Greco evaluates bias of an existing reference zero-flow value, nor does it determine any "bias indicator" (determines a true no flow measurement (zero offset measurement), paragraph 0059, lines 7-8).
Applicants further argue “Greco also does not require or disclose that the measurements occur within a band representing a zero-stability value-a key limitation added to distinguish the claimed invention.”
Examiner’s position is that discloses that KR ‘009 discloses the measurements occur within a band representing a zero-stability value (page 8, paragraph 6, lines 2-4).
Applicants further argue “Greco is determining a new zero offset, not assessing bias in a pre-existing reference zero-flow value. These are fundamentally different concepts. A bias indicator of a reference zero-flow value evaluates whether the existing reference remains valid; Greco bypasses any such evaluation and simply computes a new value when conditions are satisfied.”
Examiner’s position is that by disclosing determining a true no flow measurement (no offset measurement) (paragraph 0059, lines 7-8), Greco discloses determine a bias indicator of the reference zero-flow value. The claims (e.g., claim 1) do not recite that the bias indicator of a reference zero-flow value evaluates whether the existing reference remains valid.
Applicant’s remining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights