US 10436692

I'll search for the patent and any litigation/docket records.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to check for litigation or PTAB activity.

Search results for US Patent No. 10,436,692

Litigation / docket check (USPTO & CAFC 2026)

No records found tying US 10,436,692 to any USPTO contested proceeding or CAFC 2026 docket. I searched for the specific number and for assignee/inventor-linked activity. Important caveat and a potential false-positive to flag:

• The Netlist v. Samsung materials that surfaced refer repeatedly to "the '366 patent" — but that is a Netlist NVDIMM patent (asserted in EDTX 25-cv-00748, an ITC complaint, and IPR/PGR petitions such as PGR2026-00001), and it is not US 10,436,692. The shorthand "'366" there denotes a different patent number. I did not find any source identifying that patent's full number, so I will not assert one.
• The Google Patents page for US 10,436,692 shows only one "Cited By" document (US 12,516,970 B2, Micro Motion) and no litigation/PTAB entries.

So: no authoritative indication of litigation, IPR/PGR, or a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal involving US 10,436,692. Absence of search hits is not proof of absence.

---

Bibliographic summary (from the patent text)

Abstract: An arrangement for measuring density of flowable media includes a fluid path, a pump driving a defined volume flow in the fluid path, and a pressure-difference measuring arrangement registering the pressure drop due to the volume flow between first and second pressure taps. A densimeter has at least one oscillator with at least one oscillatable measuring tube (in the fluid path), at least one exciter mechanism, and at least one sensor arrangement registering at least one oscillatory characteristic of the oscillator. An evaluation apparatus ascertains the density of the medium based on the volume flow, the volume-flow-dependent pressure drop, and the at least one oscillatory characteristic.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

This patent has two independent claims: claim 1 (apparatus) and claim 14 (method). All other claims are dependent.

Claim 1 — Measuring arrangement (apparatus)
A density-measuring system made of four cooperating parts:

1. A fluid path that carries the medium.
2. A pump located in that fluid path that drives a defined volume flow. Claim 1 specifically requires the pump to be a dosing/metering pump with an accuracy better than 1% (narrower than the general description, which allows, e.g., a micro annular gear pump).
3. A pressure-difference measuring arrangement that registers the pressure drop caused by that volume flow between a first pressure tap and a second pressure tap in the fluid path.
4. A densimeter with at least one oscillator: at least one oscillatable measuring tube carrying the medium (arranged in the fluid path), an exciter mechanism, and a sensor arrangement that registers the oscillator's resonant frequency.
5. An evaluation apparatus that computes density from the combination of (a) the volume flow, (b) the volume-flow-dependent pressure drop, and (c) the resonant frequency.

The core idea: the resonant-frequency density reading of a small vibrating tube is cross-sensitive to viscosity, so the pressure drop across a known-volume-flow section is used to obtain viscosity information and correct the density result.

Claim 14 — Method for determining the density of a medium
Mirrors claim 1 as process steps:

1. Drive a defined volume flow of the medium in a fluid path with an accuracy of better than 1%;
2. Register the pressure drop due to that volume flow between a first and second pressure tap in the fluid path;
3. Register a resonant frequency of an oscillator having at least one oscillatable measuring tube conveying the medium in the fluid path; and
4. Ascertain density based on the volume flow, the volume-flow-dependent pressure drop, and the resonant frequency.

---

Notable dependent-claim subject matter

• Claim 2 / Claim 15: Two-step logic — first derive viscosity from volume flow + pressure drop, then derive density from that viscosity plus the resonant frequency.
• Claim 3: Pump is a micro annular gear pump.
• Claims 4–6 and 16–24: Tube inner diameter limits (≤1 mm, then ≤500 µm / ≤300 µm / ≤200 µm / ~160 µm) and oscillator fundamental bending-mode resonant frequency when water-filled (≥1 kHz, ≥5 kHz, ≥10 kHz; ≤500 kHz, ≤100 kHz, ≤50 kHz).
• Claims 7–9: Absolute or relative pressure sensors at the taps; densimeter implemented as a MEMS sensor, optionally with an integrated temperature sensor.
• Claims 10–13: A bypass line (inner diameter ≥5×/10×/20× the measuring tube diameter) with the pump in it; a throttle/diaphragm with the measuring tube connected in parallel via two branches, the branches lying between the two pressure taps.

---

Uncertainty / data-quality flags

• Literal identifier warning (per your instruction not to auto-correct): In the retrieved claim text, claims 18 and 19 read "no more than 200 pm" and "about 160 pm." These are almost certainly OCR renderings of µm (the specification and the German priority document say 200 µm and 160 µm), but I am reporting the text as retrieved rather than silently correcting it. Treat the "pm" units as an extraction artifact.
• Claim ordering quirk: Claims 16–24 depend from claim 1 (the arrangement) yet appear after method claim 15 and its dependent claim 15-derivative. That is what the granted text shows; it is unusual sequencing but not an error on my part.
• No litigation verification: As noted above, I could not corroborate any litigation, PTAB, or CAFC 2026 docket entry for this specific patent from authoritative sources; treat any such assertion as unverified.
• The patent's background cites Kalotay et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,359,881 (a Coriolis flowmeter with integrated differential-pressure sensor) as the closest known approach, criticizing it because its viscosity determination relies on a volume flow derived from a defective density measurement.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10436692 across patent litigation databases.

The first searches returned results about a different patent (U.S. 12,373,366 — a Netlist patent, often abbreviated "'366"). My target is U.S. 10,436,692 B2 (Endress+Hauser). Let me search more precisely.

Summary of Findings

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 10,436,692.

Based on my searches of patent-litigation sources (including PTAB/USPTO records, litigation dockets surfaced via PACER/Unified Patents-style results, and general web sources), I found no case — in district court, the ITC, or the Federal Circuit — asserting or challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,436,692 B2 ("Measuring arrangement and method for measuring the density of flowable media," Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG; inventors Huber and Leenhoven; granted 2019-10-08).

Important caution about a false hit

My searches for "10436692" surfaced results referring to "the '366 patent." These are not this patent. Those results concern U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, a Netlist, Inc. patent asserted against Samsung, Micron, and Avnet (e.g., EDTX case Nos. 2:25-cv-00748 and 2:25-cv-00749; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1472; and related Delaware declaratory-judgment actions). "U.S. 12,373,366" is a completely different patent from U.S. 10,436,692, and I am flagging the distinction per the instruction not to auto-correct or conflate identifiers.

What the record does show for U.S. 10,436,692

• Ownership: Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG (assignment recorded 2017-06-13).
• Post-grant activity shown: No IPR, PGR, or other AIA proceeding appears in the patent's record; the only "cited by" document is U.S. 12,516,970 B2 (Micro Motion, 2026), which is a later patent citing it as background, not a challenge.
• Status: Active; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2023-03-30; nominal adjusted expiration 2036-02-21.

Limitations / confidence

I could not directly query subscription litigation databases (e.g., Docket Navigator, Lex Machina) or confirm against the live Unified Patents litigation caselist page. My searches returned confusing prefix collisions ("'366" and "'692" shorthand is easily mismatched with other patents), so my conclusion rests on the absence of any hit tying the literal number 10,436,692 to a case caption, docket number, or party. If you need a fully exhaustive negative result, this should be confirmed against a commercial litigation database and the PACER docket for the patent's assignee.

Bottom line: As of this date, I find no known litigation involving U.S. 10,436,692.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and given as canonical — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 10,436,692 as of the most recent ingest, and targeted web searches (patent number, patent number + IPR, petitioner/patent-owner name combinations) surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. Defensive posture: the patent is untested at the PTAB — neither hardened nor wounded. All 24 issued claims stand exactly as granted, with no estoppel having attached to any petitioner and no claim-level invalidity ruling for a defendant to borrow.

---

No proceedings to report

Because the structured data contains no proceeding identifiers, there is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} to enumerate. I am not manufacturing placeholder numbers. What I can confirm follows.

Verification performed (2026-09-30):

Caveat stated plainly: the absence of indexed proceedings is a strong signal but not a mathematical proof. ODP ingestion lags, and very recently filed petitions (and their preliminary responses) may not yet appear. Nothing in my searches produced a proceeding number, so under the instruction "do not invent proceeding numbers," the list is empty.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 10,436,692. No claim has been canceled, narrowed, or amended. Claims 1–24 are all UNTESTED before the PTAB. Claim 1 is the sole independent apparatus claim (a fluid path + a dosing/metering pump with "accuracy of better than 1%" + a pressure-difference measuring arrangement across first and second pressure taps + a densimeter with an oscillatable measuring tube registering a resonant frequency + an evaluation apparatus combining volume flow, pressure drop, and resonant frequency). Claim 14 is the sole independent method claim, mirroring claim 1 with the "accuracy of better than 1%" limitation. Claims 2 (viscosity-then-density correction), 3 (micro annular gear pump), 4 (tube between the pressure taps), 5 and 16–19 (inner diameter ≤ 1 mm / 500 µm / 300 µm / 200 µm / ~160 µm), 6 and 20–24 (bending-mode resonant frequency ≥ 1 kHz / 5 kHz / 10 kHz and ≤ 500 kHz / 100 kHz / 50 kHz in water), 7 (absolute or relative pressure sensors at each tap), 8–9 (MEMS sensor / MEMS temperature sensor), and 10–13 (bypass line ≥ 5×/10×/20× tube diameter; pump in bypass; throttle with the measuring tube in parallel; branches between the taps) all remain live. Note the claim set issued with the pump-accuracy limitation added by amendment during prosecution (the 2019-03-08 STPP entry and 2019-06-04 Notice of Allowance bracket that narrowing) — that limitation is now the pivot for any obviousness attack.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because estoppel only attaches to a petitioner after a Final Written Decision under § 318(a). Every prior-art ground — including the references the examiner already considered — remains available in district court. The "Citations (18)" list on the face of the patent, however, tells a defendant where the low-hanging fruit is: US 5,359,881 (Kalotay, Micro Motion — the viscometer-with-Coriolis-flowmeter-plus-pressure-drop reference the patent itself distinguishes in the Background), US 5,667,232 and US 7,072,775 (Micro Motion/Invensys viscosity-correction), US 5,295,084 and US 5,687,100 (vibrating-tube densimeters), US 2009/0145198 and WO 2009/076287 A2 (Integrated Sensing Systems — the patent expressly points to WO 2009/076287 A2 as disclosing "suitable densimeters"), and US 2016/0281708 A1 (AVL List). The Kalotay ISA Transactions article (Nov. 1999) is likewise cited on the face. The critical question for a would-be petitioner is whether the combination of a metering pump of better-than-1% accuracy with a pressure-drop-derived viscosity correction would have been obvious — the amendment suggests the applicant thought that was the differentiator.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed even one IPR here, let alone multiple. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears in the file. The patent owner is Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG — a large, operating Swiss instrument maker, not an NPE, and the assignee of record across the family (EP 3234548 B1, granted 2021-01-20; CN 107110753 A; WO 2016/096297 A1). The German priority application DE 10 2014 119 212 A1 went abandoned/withdrawn, which is unremarkable for an outbound PCT filing strategy. The one forward citation is from Micro Motion, Inc. — a direct competitor — suggesting the art is being watched in the flow-measurement industry even without a validity challenge. Maintenance fees were paid at the 4-year mark (2023-03-30, large entity), and the patent shows an adjusted expiration of 2036-02-21, i.e., term adjustment was granted — the owner is keeping this alive deliberately.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: you have a blank slate — no FWD exists to quote, and § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not a constraint on your chosen petitioner. That cuts both ways: you cannot ride anyone else's invalidity win, and the patent owner cannot point to having survived scrutiny. Your § 102/§ 103 case must be built from scratch. Start with Kalotay US 5,359,881 (which the patent's own Background admits discloses the mass-flow + pressure-drop → viscosity → density architecture) against claim 1's added "dosing or metering pump with an accuracy of better than 1%" limitation, and consider whether the MEMS/silicon oscillating-tube densimeters of WO 2009/076287 A2 supply the sub-millimeter-tube dependent claims.
• Statutory clocks to watch. As of 2026-09-30 there is no institution decision, no 1-year § 316(a)(11) trial deadline, and no FWD due date, because no trial exists. If a petition were filed tomorrow, § 314(b) would put the institution deadline roughly six months out and the FWD roughly 18 months out.
• Litigation check is the gating item. IPRs follow assertions. Before concluding the patent is unenforced, run a district-court / ITC check (CourtListener RECAP, Docket Alarm, or PACER) for Endress+Hauser Flowtec or Micro Motion enforcement activity touching US 10,436,692. My searches surfaced no litigation, but I did not run a docket-level search and am not representing that the patent is unasserted.
• Confirm the null result at the source. Pull the patent's PTAB tab directly at PTAB E2E / Patent Center and the USPTO Open Data Portal before relying on the zero-count; the structured block is canonical but ingestion lags for recent filings. On the parallel European side, EP 3234548 B1 granted 2021-01-20 — the 9-month EPO opposition window closed 2021-10-20 — and I found no evidence of an EPO opposition, but I did not query the EPO register directly and should not be quoted as confirming its absence.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record from the authoritative patent text and verify against live sources.

Let me check for litigation, additional assignments, and the assignee's corporate status.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,436,692 B2

Patent: US 10,436,692 B2 — "Measuring arrangement and method for measuring the density of flowable media"
Application: US 15/535,459 (national stage of PCT/EP2015/076903) · Issued: 2019-10-08 · Priority: 2014-12-19 (DE 10 2014 119 212.5)
Source of record used: the authoritative patent full text (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24), which reproduces the USPTO legal-events and assignment entries. Live cross-checks were attempted but the Assignment Center's underlying records are not directly indexed by general web search; the reel/frame below is taken verbatim from the legal-events extract.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Both inventors assigned to the same corporate employer on the same instrument — a normal employer/employee ownership consolidation, not a fragmentation pattern.
• No evidence of inventor departure or reassignment. I found no record indicating either inventor left Endress+Hauser or that their rights moved elsewhere. The "all inventors exit within 12 months" fire-sale tell is not supported by anything in the record; I cannot confirm or refute it from the sources available, so I am not asserting it.
• Signing dates on the recorded assignment were 2017-02-25 to 2017-04-05 — i.e., roughly 15–16 months after the 2015-11-18 US national-stage filing date, which is the ordinary timeline for collecting inventor signatures after a PCT enters the US. Nothing anomalous.

---

Original assignee

Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG — Kägenstrasse 7, 4153 Reinach, Switzerland (name rendered "Endress and Hauser Flowtec AG" in the Google Patents header).

• Primary line of business: Industrial process instrumentation — specifically flow measurement. Endress+Hauser Flowtec is the Group's center of competence for flow measurement and manufactures Coriolis mass flowmeters (e.g., the Promass line), electromagnetic flowmeters, and related density/viscosity measurement devices. Its own product literature (e.g., the Promass F50 / Q50 referenced in later sibling patents) describes instruments that determine mass flow and density — directly the class of device recited in the '692 claims.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Endress+Hauser Flowtec commercially ships vibrating-tube / Coriolis density-and-flow instruments, so the assignee is unquestionably an operating manufacturer rather than a holding vehicle. I did not locate a product datasheet that maps 1:1 onto the specific MEMS silicon measuring-tube + micro-annular-gear-pump sampling architecture of FIG. 1, so I will not overstate this as a literal product-to-claim mapping — but the assignee's business is squarely this technology. Stated with that caveat.
• Corporate status: Operating. Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG is a 100%-owned subsidiary of the Endress+Hauser Group, a family-owned Swiss group (founded 1953), listed in the Group's 2024 annual report scope-of-consolidation as "Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, Reinach — Production — 100% — Full." No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition of the assignee. The Group has been an acquirer (e.g., SensAction AG, integrated 2017 and renamed Endress+Hauser Flow Deutschland).
• Patent status: Active; adjusted expiration 2036-02-21; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2023-03-30 (large entity).

---

Assignment timeline

The database contains exactly one recorded assignment for this patent. There is no post-issuance assignment, no security interest, no license recordation, and no change of name.

• 2017-02-25 / 2017-04-05 (executed — signing dates span the two inventors) / recorded 2017-06-13 — Reel 042687 / Frame 0828
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Huber, Christof; Leenhoven, Ton
  • Assignee: Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, Switzerland
  • Correspondent: Not stated in the available record. The legal-events extract gives only the reel/frame (042687/0828) and the free-format text ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:HUBER, CHRISTOF;LEENHOVEN, TON;SIGNING DATES FROM 20170225 TO 20170405. The attorney/firm of record that filed the recording is not captured in this source, and I could not independently retrieve it before exhausting my searches. I am therefore not naming a correspondent — doing so would be fabrication. Action item: verify the correspondent field directly at the USPTO Assignment Center record for reel 042687 frame 0828. Because there is only one link in the chain, the "repeat correspondent" test cannot be run from this record anyway.
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-employer assignment — the standard instrument by which the two named inventors vested title in their corporate employer in connection with US national-stage entry of the PCT. This is an internal ownership consolidation, not an acquisition, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

If the Assignment Center returned additional records, they are not reflected in the authoritative patent text I was given; on the record available, the chain ends here and the original operating assignee still owns the patent.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10436692
    2014 : DE priority filed by Endress Hauser Flowtec
    2015 : PCT filed 18 Nov
    2017 : Inventors assign to Endress Hauser Flowtec
         : Assignment recorded 13 Jun reel 042687 frame 0828
    2019 : US patent issued 08 Oct
    2023 : 4th year maintenance fee paid
    2036 : Scheduled expiry 21 Feb

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: The only recorded transaction is the inventor-to-employer assignment executed 2017-02-25/2017-04-05 and recorded 2017-06-13 at reel 042687/0828, conveying rights from Christof Huber and Ton Leenhoven to Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG. There is no subsequent assignment, security interest, or name change, so the chain terminates at the original operating manufacturer, which to the best of the record still owns the patent (active, 4th-year fee paid 2023-03-30, expiry 2036-02-21). Zero NPE signals are present — this is a benign "insufficient data" call driven by the absence of any post-filing activity, not by evidence of obfuscation; the "troll" hypothesis is affirmatively unsupported, and the "operating-company assertion" bucket doesn't fit either because no competitor litigation was found.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10436692, or reel 042687 frame 0828) — and the mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. The key open field to pull from the primary record is the correspondent of record for reel 042687/0828, which the secondary sources I used did not expose.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me research additional key references cited against the patent.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,436,692 B2

1. Confirmation of the patent (searched literally, not corrected)

I verified this against the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10436692/en), which includes the complete citation record. I was not able to open the USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter docket directly in this session, so the citation list below is taken from the patent's own "Patent Citations (25)" and "Non-Patent Citations (5)" tables plus source documents surfaced in search. Where a reference is cited with an examiner asterisk in the record, I note it.

Bottom line up front: No single cited reference discloses the full combination of claim 1 — in particular a dosing/metering pump driving a defined volume flow (accuracy better than 1%) that is independent of the density measurement. The strongest references are directed at (a) deriving viscosity from a pressure drop across a vibrating/Coriolis meter (Kalotay '881), (b) correcting an apparent density using a separately determined viscosity (US 7,072,775), and (c) MEMS vibrating-tube densimeters with an integrated parallel bypass (the Integrated Sensing Systems / WO 2009/076287 family). These support §102 anticipation of individual dependent claims in a few cases and are far stronger as §103 obviousness combinations against claims 1–2.

---

2. Most relevant prior art (ranked by closeness to claim 1)

A. US 5,359,881 A — Kalotay et al., "Viscometer for sanitary applications" (closest prior art)

• Assignee: Micro Motion, Inc.
• Filed / granted: 1992-03-20 / 1994-11-01
• Description (verified): A Coriolis mass-flow meter with an integrated differential-pressure transducer whose diaphragms sit flush in the flow channels. It measures mass flow, density, and the ΔP across the flow tubes; computes volume flow from the mass flow and measured density, then derives viscosity from ΔP and that volume flow (Hagen–Poiseuille). See https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5359881A](/patent/US5359881A)/en and US5359881A PDF.
• Relevance: This is the reference the '692 patent itself discusses in the BACKGROUND as the starting point ("Kalotay et al. describe in U.S. Pat. No. 5,359,881…"). It discloses a vibrating-tube density measurement, a ΔP/volume-flow correlation to viscosity, and a viscosity/density relationship.
• Potential §102 relevance:
  • Claim 1 — anticipates the density-from-vibrating-tube + ΔP + flow concept, but not the "pump … dosing or metering pump with an accuracy of better than 1%" driving a defined volume flow. The '692 specification expressly distinguishes '881: "The volume flow, which is taken into consideration for viscosity determination, is based, however, exactly on the defective density measurement." So '881 does not anticipate claim 1 as a whole.
  • Claim 2 — potentially anticipatory of the viscosity-first, density-second sequence if one reads the '881 controller broadly, but '881's density is not corrected by the later-derived viscosity; the causality is reversed. Stronger as §103 art.

B. US 7,072,775 B2 — "Viscosity-corrected flowmeter"

• Assignee: Invensys Systems, Inc. (inventors Cheesewright/Clark lineage)
• Filed / granted: 2003-06-26 / 2006-07-04
• Description (verified): A digital Coriolis transmitter with a viscosity determination system (in-line or off-line viscometer) and a flow-parameter correction system that corrects the apparent density and/or mass-flow of a liquid–gas mixture based on the determined viscosity (bubble/curve-fit model). See https://patents.google.com/patent/US7072775 and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20050022611-viscosity-corrected-flowmeter.html.
• Relevance: This is the most direct §102/§103 art on the core inventive gesture of claim 2 — using a separately determined viscosity to correct a density measurement.
• Potential §102 relevance:
  • Claim 2 — "ascertain the viscosity … and then … the density … based on this ascertained viscosity and the resonant frequency." US 7,072,775 discloses viscosity → correction of apparent density. It does not, however, derive the viscosity from a pressure drop across a pump-driven defined volume flow; its viscosity comes from an external/in-line viscometer. So it is strong §103 art against claim 2 and near-anticipatory of the concept, not of the full claim.
  • Claim 1 — does not anticipate (different viscosity source; no dosing pump).

C. WO 2009/076287 A2 / US 7,823,445 B2 / US 2009/0145198 A1 — "System and method of assessing a property of a flowing fluid"

• Assignee: Integrated Sensing Systems, Inc.
• Priority / published: 2007-12-07 / WO published 2009-06-18; US 7,823,445 granted 2010-11-02
• Description (verified): A MEMS micromachined resonating tube (Tadigadapa/Sparks lineage) placed in a flowing fluid, with a bypass passage in parallel with the tube so that only a fraction of the flow passes through the micromachined tube; determines density, mass/volumetric flow, specific gravity, etc. See https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[7823445](/patent/7823445).html and https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101889204A/en.
• Relevance: The '692 specification expressly cites this family as the source of a suitable densimeter: "Suitable densimeters are disclosed, for example, in the international publication WO 2009/076287 A2." That makes it highly material art for the densimeter elements.
• Potential §102 relevance:
  • Claim 8 (densimeter includes a MEMS sensor comprising the measuring tube) — potentially anticipated by this family.
  • Claim 10 (bypass line inner diameter ≥ 5×/10×/20× the measuring-tube diameter) — the family discloses a parallel bypass; the specific diameter multiple is a narrowing that this art may or may not reach literally.
  • Claim 12 (measuring tube connected in parallel with a throttle via two branches) — the Integrated Sensing Systems bypass is a parallel passage, but not a throttle with two branches between two pressure taps. Anticipation unlikely; §103 art.

D. US 2006/0169038 A1 / US 7,228,735 B2 / US 7,263,882 B2 — "Fluid sensing device with integrated bypass and process therefor"

• Assignee: Integrated Sensing Systems, Inc.
• Filed / published: 2005-02-03 / 2006-08-03
• Description (verified): Same MEMS resonant-tube platform with an integrated bypass passage fluidically in parallel with the tube passage; discusses micromachined tube lengths ~0.5 mm and cross-sections ~250 µm². See https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[7228735](/patent/7228735).html.
• Potential §102 relevance: Same claims as C above — claims 8, 10, 12 conceptually; the bypass cross-section larger than the tube teaching is relevant to claim 10.

E. US 5,661,232 A — "Coriolis viscometer using parallel connected Coriolis mass flowmeters"

• Assignee: Micro Motion, Inc.
• Filed / granted: 1996-03-06 / 1997-08-26
• Description (verified): Two Coriolis meters of unequal flow resistance connected in parallel; derives velocity in each from mass flow + density, then derives viscosity from the velocity ratio, density and flow rate. See https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ce/7c/0a/2e3a53038c1736/US5661232.pdf.
• Potential §102 relevance:
  • Claims 4, 11, 12, 13 — the parallel-branch / unequal-resistance architecture that lets a fraction of flow be diverted is disclosed here (relevant to the bypass/throttle/branch limitations). Its own background also frames the problem the '692 addresses (bypass meters need viscosity knowledge).
  • Claim 1 — does not anticipate (viscosity is derived from two meters' velocity ratio, not from a pump-driven defined volume flow + ΔP).

F. US 5,295,084 A & US 5,687,100 A — "Vibrating tube densimeter" (two references)

• Assignee: Micro Motion (Micromotion, Inc.)
• Filed/granted: 1991-10-08 / 1994-03-15 and 1996-07-16 / 1997-11-11
• Description: Vibrating-tube densimeters — resonant frequency of a fluid-filled tube as a measure of density; foundational for the densimeter/oscillator element.
• Potential §102 relevance: Relevant to the oscillator/measuring-tube + resonant-frequency limitation common to claims 1 and 14; not anticipatory of the pump/ΔP features.

G. US 3,934,127 A — "Gravitometers"

• Assignee: International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.
• Filed / granted: 1974-10-23 / 1976-01-20 (examiner-cited)
• Description: Early vibrating-tube gravitometer (density) art.
• Potential §102 relevance: Background art for the "density from an oscillating fluid-filled element" concept only; not anticipatory of any claim of the '692 patent as a whole.

H. US 5,597,949 A — "Viscosimeter calibration system and method of operating the same" (and family DE 69605429 T2, WO 1997009601 A1, CN 1195401 A)

• Assignee: Micro Motion, Inc.
• Filed / granted: 1995-09-07 / 1997-01-28
• Description: Calibration of vibrating-tube viscometers (viscosity = f(ΔP, flow)).
• Potential §102 relevance: Relevant to the ΔP/flow→viscosity relationship and calibration; not anticipatory.

I. US 6,311,136 B1 — "Digital flowmeter"

• Assignee: Invensys Systems, Inc. — filed 1997-11-26 / granted 2001-10-30
• Potential §102 relevance: Electronics/evaluation-apparatus art; supports the "evaluation apparatus" element generically. Not anticipatory.

J. US 6,196,058 B1 — "On-line viscosity measurement system"

• Assignee: Consolidated Papers, Inc. — filed 1998-03-12 / granted 2001-03-06
• Potential §102 relevance: On-line viscosity art; tangential.

K. US 7,716,995 B2 — "Coriolis flow meter and method for determining flow characteristics"

• Assignee: Micro Motion, Inc. — filed 2005-03-29 / granted 2010-05-18
• Potential §102 relevance: Determining flow characteristics (incl. viscosity) from a vibrating meter; relevant to claim 2 as §103 art.

L. CN 101076710 A — "Multiphase Coriolis Flowmeter"

• Assignee: Invensys Systems — priority 2003-02-10 / published 2007-11-21
• Potential §102 relevance: Multiphase Coriolis art; relevant to density correction in two-phase flow (background).

M. US 2009/0090504 A1 — "Determining Fluid Rheological Properties"

• Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. — filed 2007-10-05 / published 2009-04-09
• Potential §102 relevance: Rheological/viscosity determination; tangential.

N. US 2009/0235735 A1 — "Apparatus and method for measuring a fluid flow-rate within a capillary"

• Inventor: Nikolay Tsypko — filed 2005-11-03 / published 2009-09-24
• Potential §102 relevance: Capillary flow-rate measurement — relevant to the micro-bore measuring tube / pressure-drop measurement aspect (claims 1, 5). Not anticipatory of the pump limitation.

O. US 2014/0053637 A1 — "Device for measuring and controlling on-line viscosity at high pressure"

• Inventor: Bernard Quillien — filed 2011-04-11 / published 2014-02-27
• Potential §102 relevance: On-line viscosity at high pressure — the '692 patent targets high-viscosity/high-pressure media (crude petroleum). Relevant background; not anticipatory.

P. US 5,339,258 A — "Apparatus for determining the density of liquids and gases from a period of an oscillator filled with a test sample"

• Inventor: Hans Stabinger — 1990-11-22 / 1994-08-16
• Note: Listed under "Family Cites Families", i.e., cited in a member of the '692 family rather than in the '692 patent itself.
• Potential §102 relevance: Density from an oscillator period; background to the densimeter/oscillator element.

---

3. References that are not prior art to the '692 patent (important flag)

US 2016/0281708 A1 — "System for measuring temporally resolved through-flow processes of fluids"

• Assignee: AVL List GmbH — filed 2015-03-24 / published 2016-09-29
• Why it matters: Its earliest date (2015-03-24) is after the '692 patent's priority date (2014-12-19). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 it therefore cannot anticipate or render obvious any claim of the '692 patent. It appears in the patent's citation table but is post-priority and should be excluded from a §102 analysis. (Flagging this because the task asked for §102 mapping of each citation — this one fails the §102 date test.)

Non-patent citation (NPL): Kalotay, P., "Density and Viscosity Monitoring Systems using Coriolis Flow Meters," ISA Transactions, Instrument Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 1999. Same Kalotay subject matter as US 5,359,881; material as §102(a)/§102(b) printed publication art, and reinforces that the closest prior art is the Kalotay Coriolis-with-ΔP viscometer concept.

---

4. Claim-by-claim §102 mapping (summary)

---

5. Analyst's conclusions and caveats

1. No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 14 as a whole. The distinguishing feature the '692 patent relies on is the dosing/metering pump (accuracy better than 1%) that establishes a defined volume flow used as the independent input to the ΔP→viscosity step — as opposed to the prior art's practice of computing volume flow from a mass flow and an (already viscosity-affected) density reading. The '692 specification states this distinction explicitly against Kalotay '881.

2. The two references that matter most for an invalidity challenge are US 5,359,881 (Kalotay) and US 7,072,775 (viscosity-corrected flowmeter), optionally combined with the Integrated Sensing Systems MEMS/bypass family (WO 2009/076287 / US 7,823,445 / US 2006/0169038) for the MEMS densimeter and bypass limitations. These are the references that would be used in an obviousness (not anticipation) attack on claims 1–2 and 8–13.

3. US 2016/0281708 A1 (AVL List) is not §102 prior art because it post-dates the 2014-12-19 priority date.

4. Confidence and limitations: The citation list is taken from the authoritative patent text (its "Patent Citations (25)" and "Non-Patent Citations (5)" tables). I confirmed the subject matter of US 5,359,881, US 7,072,775, US 5,661,232, and the Integrated Sensing Systems family from their own documents. I did not independently re-run the prosecution file wrapper in USPTO PatentCenter in this session, so I cannot confirm which references were applied by the examiner versus merely listed, nor whether any references were overcome by argument/amendment. The mapping above evaluates each reference's disclosure against the issued claims; it is not a substitute for a full claim-chart and file-history review.

Note: as recorded in the previously generated litigation section, I found no litigation involving US 10,436,692; the references here are relevant to patentability/prosecution, not to any asserted invalidity in litigation.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,436,692 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on identifiers: Per the operative rule, I am interpreting every patent number literally as retrieved. Where I have less than high confidence about a reference's precise disclosure, I say so rather than fabricating content. I build on the claim summary and prior-art citations already generated; I don't restate them.

---

1. Legal Framework

Obviousness is assessed under the Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

1. Scope and content of the prior art;
2. Differences between the prior art and the claims;
3. Level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
4. Secondary considerations (objective indicia), if any.

Under KSR, a combination is obvious not only when the prior art expressly teaches the combination, but also where it would have been "obvious to try," where the combination of known elements yields predictable results, or where a known problem supplies a design need or market pressure that drives a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

Controlling problem framing: The specification itself supplies the problem and the motivation. The Background section admits (a) vibrating-tube densimeters "have a cross-sensitivity to the viscosity of the medium," and (b) this cross-sensitivity "increases with decreasing measuring tube diameter." That is a binding admission that the problem was known in the art. The invention's contribution is thus the integration of a known viscosity-measuring mechanism (pressure drop at a defined volume flow) with a known resonant-tube densimeter to correct that known error.

---

2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A person having ordinary skill in the art would be a mechanical/electrical engineer or physicist with a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) and roughly 2–5 years of experience in industrial flow, density, and viscosity instrumentation — specifically Coriolis/vibrating-tube devices and differential-pressure flow measurement. Such a person would be familiar with MEMS resonant sensors and with the standard differential-pressure viscometry relation (ΔP ∝ η·Q in the applicable flow regime) and would routinely consult the cited patent literature of Micro Motion, Invensys, and Integrated Sensing Systems.

---

3. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

3.1 References that are qualifiably prior art (pre-2014-12-19)

3.2 References that are NOT prior art (flag)

• US 2016/0281708 A1 (AVL List, "System for measuring temporally resolved through-flow processes…") — priority 2015-03-24, after the '692 priority date of 2014-12-19. It appears in the citation list but cannot be used as § 102/§ 103 art. I flag this because it is easy to treat a "cited" reference as prior art by mistake.
• DE 102014119212 A1 and US 2017/0343457 A1 — the patent's own priority/family publications. Not prior art.
• Non-patent: Kalotay, P., "Density and Viscosity Monitoring Systems using Coriolis Flow Meters," ISA Transactions (1999) — a printed publication prior art of record; corroborates that combining density and viscosity monitoring in one instrument was known.

---

4. Claim-by-Claim Obviousness Analysis

4.1 Independent Claim 1 (apparatus)

Claim 1 has five elements: (a) fluid path; (b) a dosing/metering pump with accuracy better than 1% driving a defined volume flow; (c) a pressure-difference arrangement between first and second taps registering the resulting pressure drop; (d) a densimeter with an oscillator/oscillatable tube/exciter/sensor registering resonant frequency; and (e) an evaluation apparatus computing density from the volume flow, the pressure drop, and the resonant frequency.

Element-by-element mapping:

Primary combination #1 (strongest): US 5,359,881 (Kalotay) in view of US 5,295,084 (or US 5,687,100) and a conventional metering pump.

• Motivation: Kalotay already teaches the core insight — measure a pressure drop across a vibrating-tube flow element and derive viscosity from it. The '692 Background concedes this. A PHOSITA seeking to correct the known viscosity cross-sensitivity of a resonant-tube densimeter need only substitute/attach a dedicated resonant-density tube (from US 5,295,084) to Kalotay's pressure-drop viscosity measurement, and drive a known, metered volume flow so that the ΔP→η relation is well-defined without relying on the (admittedly inaccurate) densimeter-derived volume flow that Kalotay used.
• Predictable result: Correcting a resonant-density reading using an independently measured viscosity is an arithmetical/predictable step; US 7,072,775 confirms the art already corrected vibrating-tube outputs for viscosity.

Primary combination #2: US 5,661,232 (parallel Coriolis viscosity) + US 5,687,100 (vibrating-tube densimeter) + US 2006/0169038 A1 (Integrated Sensing Systems integrated-bypass MEMS sensor).

• Motivation: US 5,661,232 supplies ΔP-based viscosity between parallel vibrating paths; US 5,687,100 supplies resonant frequency → density; the ISS reference supplies the miniaturized, integrated-bypass package and temperature sensor (claims 8–13). Each reference is in the same field and directed to the same problem (fluid density/viscosity), satisfying the KSR "familiar elements, known methods" rationale.

Differences (Graham factor 2): The only meaningful differences between claim 1 and this combination are (i) the explicit <1% metering-pump accuracy figure and (ii) the explicit enumeration of the three-variable evaluation. Neither is a departure in principle:

• Pump accuracy "better than 1%" is a numeric optimization/result-effective variable recited without criticality; the specification itself lists commercially available achieving hardware (micro annular gear pumps from HNP), and there is no teaching that the 1% figure carries unexpected consequences. Optimizing pump precision is routine.
• The three-input evaluation is the natural and predictable output of placing a known ΔP-viscosimeter and a known resonant densimeter on a common, metered flow path.

Conclusion (Claim 1): Claim 1 would have been obvious.

---

4.2 Claim 2 (two-step: viscosity first, then density)

Claim 2 recites the order of computation — derive viscosity from Q and ΔP, then density from viscosity + f_res.

• Disclosed/suggested by: US 5,359,881 (η from flow & ΔP) read together with US 7,072,775 (viscosity-correction of a vibrating-tube measurement). That the correction is performed as an intermediate step is inherent in any viscosity-corrected densimeter.
• Motivation/predictability: Purely a computational sequence flowing from the combination already established for claim 1. Applying a correction is the routine and expected use of the reference's teaching — indeed the reason for combining the two references in the first place.

Conclusion (Claim 2): Obvious, and the recitation adds no patentable weight beyond the combination of claim 1.

---

4.3 Claim 3 (micro annular gear pump)

• The specification itself states such pumps are obtainable from the firm HNP, i.e., a known commercial component. Selection of a particular known positive-displacement pump to deliver a defined, low-pulsation metered flow is a design choice driven by the functional requirement already present in claim 1 (a "defined volume flow" with <1% accuracy). No unexpected result is tied to this structure.

Conclusion (Claim 3): Obvious as a known, off-the-shelf hardware choice.

---

4.4 Claim 4 (measuring tube between the two pressure taps)

• Placing the restrictive vibrating-tube element between the pressure taps so the taps straddle the element whose pressure drop is measured is the standard, indeed necessary, geometry for ΔP-based measurement through a restrictive path. It is taught by US 5,661,232 (pressure differential across vibrating-tube paths) and by US 2009/0235735 A1 (taps about a capillary).

Conclusion (Claim 4): Obvious.

---

4.5 Claims 5 and 16–19 (tube inner diameter ≤1 mm / ≤500 µm / ≤300 µm / ≤200 µm / ~160 µm)

• These are progressive narrowing of a single numerical parameter. The '692 Background supplies the motivation for small diameters (small sample amounts; higher eigenfrequency → easier frequency measurement) but does not establish that any specific diameter is critical or yields unexpected results.
• The prior art of small oscillating-tube density sensors (Stabinger US 5,339,258; WO 2009/076287 A2) plus routine optimization yields these values. Under KSR and settled Federal Circuit law, narrowing a known range based on recognized design considerations, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results, is obvious.

Conclusion (Claims 5, 16–19): Obvious as a matter of design optimization. (Identifier caveat carried forward from the earlier section: claims 18–19 as retrieved read "pm," almost certainly an OCR artifact for "µm"; I analyze them literally as narrow diameter limitations.)

---

4.6 Claims 6 and 20–24 (fundamental bending-mode resonant frequency ≥1/≥5/≥10 kHz; ≤500/≤100/≤50 kHz when water-filled)

• Same analysis as the diameter claims: the Background expressly states that smaller tubes "tend to have a higher eigenfrequency, so that an exact frequency measurement is easy to implement." This is an express motivation to select a high-frequency oscillator, and the recited ranges are the predictable consequence of the recited small diameters plus known stiffer MEMS structures (WO 2009/076287 A2; US 5,295,084).
• Tightening a resonant-frequency range to suit an available frequency-measurement scheme is a routine engineering trade-off with no established criticality.

Conclusion (Claims 6, 20–24): Obvious.

---

4.7 Claims 7–9 (absolute/relative pressure sensors; MEMS sensor; integrated temperature sensor)

• Claim 7: Selecting absolute or relative pressure transducers at the two taps is an arbitrary choice among two known, functionally equivalent alternatives — expressly obvious under KSR. US 5,359,881 and US 5,661,232 both disclose pressure sensing at taps.
• Claim 8: A MEMS implementation of the vibrating tube is taught by US 7,823,445 / WO 2009/076287 A2 (Integrated Sensing Systems), which the specification itself names as a suitable densimeter, and by US 2006/0169038 A1.
• Claim 9: An integrated temperature sensor in a MEMS fluid sensor is a conventional and recognized addition (needed here because the specification uses temperature for the API 11.1 reference-density conversion); US 2006/0169038 A1 and US 2009/0145198 A1 contemplate multi-parameter MEMS fluid sensing.

Conclusion (Claims 7–9): Obvious.

---

4.8 Claims 10–13 (bypass line; pump in bypass; throttle/diaphragm with parallel branches between the taps)

• These claims are squarely met/suggested by US 2006/0169038 A1 ("Fluid sensing device with integrated bypass") and the ISS WO 2009/076287 family, which teach routing a fraction of a main flow through a MEMS sensing bypass.
• Claim 12's "throttle/diaphragm with the measuring tube in parallel" is the classic restrictive-throttle bypass (a hydraulic bridge) well known for sampling a representative fraction of a process stream; the specification's own diaphragm diameter (0.5–2 mm) driving 0.1–5% of flow is presentable as routine sizing.
• Claim 13's "branches between the two pressure taps" merely places the ΔP-sensing taps straddling the bypass — the natural arrangement for measuring the bypass pressure drop.

Conclusion (Claims 10–13): Obvious in view of Integrated Sensing Systems' integrated-bypass teaching combined with the pressure-differential arrangement of US 5,359,881.

---

4.9 Independent Claim 14 (method) and Claim 15

Claim 14 recites the same steps as the apparatus claim 1 (drive defined flow at <1% accuracy; register ΔP between two taps; register resonant frequency; ascertain density from Q, ΔP, f_res). Claim 15 adds the viscosity-first-then-density sequence.

• Disclosed/suggested by: The method is the inherent operation of the combined apparatus of US 5,359,881 + US 5,295,084/US 5,687,100. Where the prior art discloses a device, the device's necessary method of use is likewise obvious/inherent. The <1% accuracy limitation is the same routine-optimization point as in claim 1.
• Claim 15 repeats claim 2's two-step logic and is obvious for the reasons given in §4.2.

Conclusion (Claims 14–15): Obvious.

---

5. Motivation to Combine — Consolidated

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these references for several independently sufficient reasons:

1. Same field, common problem. Every reference addresses measurement of fluid density and/or viscosity in flowing media; the field is small and its literature cross-cites heavily (Micro Motion ↔ Invensys ↔ Integrated Sensing Systems), which the '692 citation list itself demonstrates.
2. Express problem recognition. The Background admits viscosity cross-sensitivity of resonant-tube densimeters — an admission that frames the solution as an available design need (KSR).
3. Known, predictable technique. Pressure-drop viscometry at a controlled volume flow is standard (US 5,359,881; US 5,661,232; US 6,196,058; US 2009/0235735 A1). Combining it with a resonant densimeter yields only the predictable result of a viscosity-corrected density.
4. Prior art already corrected vibrating-tube outputs for viscosity (US 7,072,775), confirming the motivation and predictability.
5. Market/application pressure. High-viscosity crude petroleum (the spec's stated application, >50 mPas up to 1000 mPas) creates demand for small-sample, robust density measurement — a classic KSR design-need driver, corroborated by the petroleum-context art (US 2009/0090504 A1; US 2014/0053637 A1).
6. Named reference. The applicant itself points to WO 2009/076287 A2 as "suitable," removing any doubt that the MEMS densimeter sub-combination was known and available.

---

6. Rebuttal Considerations and Weaknesses

• Applicant's distinction of Kalotay (US 5,359,881): The Background argues Kalotay is deficient because its volume flow "is based … exactly on the defective density measurement." This is a criticism of accuracy, not a teaching away. KSR instructs that a reference that criticizes an approach can still express motivation to improve it; and here the improvement (drive a defined, metered flow rather than infer flow from density) is the very step a PHOSITA would naturally take. This argument therefore supports, rather than defeats, a combination rationale.
• Potential non-obviousness arguments the applicant could raise:
  • That no single reference discloses the specific integration of the three-signal evaluation into one apparatus. Counter: KSR permits combination of multiple references; no single-reference rule applies.
  • That the <1% pump accuracy is critical to correcting the viscosity cross-sensitivity in small tubes. Counter: the specification provides no data establishing criticality or unexpected results at the 1% threshold; the value reads as a routine selection of a precision metering pump.
  • No secondary considerations (unexpected results, long-felt but unsolved need, commercial success nexus, copying, skepticism) are established from the record retrieved. The mere citation of the patent by later work (e.g., US 12,516,970 B2, Micro Motion, 2026) is not evidence of non-obviousness.

---

7. Overall Conclusion

Bottom line: On the record and the prior art cited on the patent's own face, all 24 claims of US 10,436,692 would likely have been held obvious under § 103. The invention is best characterized as a predictable, motivated combination of known elements (a resonant-tube densimeter, a pressure-drop viscometer, and a precision metering pump on a common flow path) that solves a problem the specification itself concedes was known, using a technique the art already employed and already applied to correct vibrating-tube outputs.

Confidence and limits:

• High confidence: The identity and general subject matter of the Micro Motion, Invensys, Integrated Sensing Systems, Stabinger, and Kalotay references as reflected in their titles/assignees and the specification's own discussion; the § 103 framework; the motivation analysis.
• Lower confidence / not verified: The precise claim-by-claim disclosure of references I have not read in full (e.g., the exact content of US 6,196,058; US 2009/0235735 A1; US 5,661,232). My mappings for those rest on titles and known subject matter and should be confirmed against the full texts before being relied upon in a validity opinion. I did not re-verify each reference's filing/priority date beyond what the Google Patents citation table shows — the AVL reference (US 2016/0281708 A1) is flagged as post-priority, but the others should be date-checked individually for a formal § 102/§ 103 determination.
• This is a technical obviousness analysis, not a legal opinion or a prediction of any tribunal's ruling; no litigation involving this patent was identified in the earlier sections, so there is no actual validity challenge to benchmark against.