Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/687,874

VIBRONIC MULTISENSOR

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Examiner
ALLEN, ANDRE J
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Endress+Hauser
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1304 granted / 1425 resolved
+23.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1452
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1425 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2024 & 2/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 7/29/2024 Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Standing Wave Vibronic Multi-sensor” “Vibronic Multi-sensor With Standing Wave Feature. “Vibronic Multi-sensor With Standing Wave Monitoring Feature. “Vibronic Multi-sensor With Improved Signal Transmission” “State Monitoring Vibronic Multi-sensor” Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 15-17 & 24-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-26 of copending Application No. 18/686,474 (‘474 hereinafter) in view of Vig et al (US 6260408 B1)(‘408 hereinafter). Regarding claims 15 & 26 ‘474 discloses exciting a sensor unit using an excitation signal such that mechanical oscillations are executed; receiving the mechanical oscillations by the sensor unit and converting the mechanical oscillations into a first received signal; transmitting a transmitted signal from the sensor unit and receiving a second received signal; and calculating a first process variable based on the first received signal and calculating a second process variable based on the second received signal. [Claim 14]. ‘474 does not teach the transmitted signal is selected such that a standing wave is produced at least in a part of the medium between a first component of the sensor unit and a second component of the sensor unit or a wall of the containment. ‘408 teaches fluid property sensing assembly that discloses a transmitted signal is selected such that a standing wave is produced at least in a part of the medium between a first component of the sensor unit and a second component of the sensor unit or a wall of the containment. (Col. 10 lines 8-28) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art of vibration sensing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vibration sensor as taught by ‘474 with a transmitted signal is selected such that a standing wave is produced at least in a part of the medium between a first component of the sensor unit and a second component of the sensor unit or a wall of the containment as taught by ‘408 for the purpose of monitoring the properties of fluid flow via frequency / oscillation induction. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 16 ‘474 teaches an excitation signal is an electrical signal having at least one predeterminable excitation frequency and a sinusoidal, rectangular, trapezoidal, triangular, or sawtooth shape. [Claims 14-26]. Regarding claim 17 ‘474 teaches the transmitted signal is an electrical signal having at least one predeterminable transmission frequency and a rectangular, trapezoidal, triangular, or sawtooth shape. [Claims 14-26] Regarding claim 24 ‘474 teaches determining at least a third process variable. [Claim 18] Regarding claim 25 ‘474 teaches a mechanically oscillatable unit in the form of an oscillatory fork having two oscillatory elements and at least one piezoelectric element, and wherein the at least one piezoelectric element is arranged, at least partially, within an oscillatory element. [Claim 17] Regarding claim 27 ‘474 teaches at least one piezoelectric element includes a first piezoelectric element and a second piezoelectric element, and wherein the first piezoelectric element is arranged, at least partially, within the first oscillatory element and a second piezoelectric element is arranged, at least partially, within the second oscillatory element. [Claims 14-16] Regarding claim 28 ‘474 teaches a first transmitted signal is transmitted by the first piezoelectric element, wherein a second transmitted signal is transmitted by the second piezoelectric element, and wherein the first transmitted signal and the second transmitted signal are of equal phase. [Claims 14-19] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vig et al (US 6260408 B1). Regarding claim 15 Vig et al teaches exciting a sensor unit 10 using an excitation signal such that mechanical oscillations are executed (via oscillators 13 14); receiving the mechanical oscillations 13 14 by the sensor unit 10 and converting the mechanical oscillations into a first received signal (Col. 8 lines 24-67)(Col. 9 lines 1-20); transmitting a transmitted signal from the sensor unit 10 and receiving a second received signal (Col. 9 lines 20-67); and calculating a first process variable (Density, Viscosity, Velocity, Temperature, Shear penetration)(Col. 8 lines 24-36) based on the first received signal (Col. 8 lines 24-67)(Col. 9 lines 1-20) and calculating a second process variable (Density, Viscosity, Velocity, Temperature, Shear penetration)(Col. 8 lines 24-36) based on the second received signal (Col. 8 lines 24-67)(Col. 9 lines 1-20) wherein the transmitted signal is selected such that a standing wave is produced at least in a part of the medium between a first component of the sensor unit and a second component of the sensor unit or a wall of the containment. (Col. 10 lines 8-28). Regarding claim 16 Vig et al teaches the excitation signal is an electrical signal having at least one predeterminable excitation frequency and a sinusoidal, rectangular, trapezoidal, triangular, or sawtooth shape. (Col. 8 lines 24-67)(Col. 9 lines 1-20) (Col. 14 lines 29-48) Regarding claim 17 Vig et al teaches the excitation signal is an electrical signal having at least one predeterminable excitation frequency and a sinusoidal, rectangular, trapezoidal, triangular, or sawtooth shape. (Col. 8 lines 24-67)(Col. 9 lines 1-20) (Col. 14 lines 29-48) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12369493 B2 Vibronic multisensory WO 2021170339 A1 VIBRONIC MULTISENSOR WO 2020249318 A1 VIBRONIC MULTISENSOR WO 2020094266 A1 VIBRONIC MULTISENSOR US 12153022 B2 Vibronic multisensor Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM. 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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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. /ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600515
METHOD FOR MONITORING THE SEALING OF A CONTAINER AND DEVICE WITH IMPROVED SEALING MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598716
SENSOR DEVICE AND VALVE ASSEMBLY WITH IMPROVED SEALING FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596045
Pressure Sensor and Pressure Relief Valve Testing
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596044
PRESSURE SENSOR HAVING AN ELASTIC CONDUCTIVE MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590858
PROTECTIVE CAP FOR PRESSURE SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1425 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month