US 11073499

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for any litigation or CAFC activity involving this patent and confirm the claim set.

Search note / methodology

I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center or PACER from this environment; I ran targeted web searches (Google Patents, PubChem patent record, Justia Patents, Federal Circuit opinion trackers). The authoritative source below is the full text of the patent as fetched from Google Patents (fetched 2026‑09‑24), which I treated as controlling over secondary records.

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, IPR appeal, or district‑court litigation involving US 11,073,499. Searches for "11073499" + Endress+Hauser lawsuit/CAFC returned only unrelated results (Czech/EPO registers, unrelated EPO Board decision T 0194/23, other Endress+Hauser publications). Uncertainty: I cannot confirm the absence of litigation authoritatively — only that nothing surfaced. Do not treat "no litigation" as verified.

---

US 11,073,499 B2 — bibliographic summary

Discrepancy flag (interpreted literally, not auto‑corrected): the record is internally inconsistent on the PCT. The Google Patents header shows the US filing date as 2017‑04‑17, while the family/priority tables list PCT/EP2017/060076 and EP17719616.9 as filed 2017‑04‑27. Additionally, the patent's own "Cross‑Reference" paragraph states the PCT was "filed on May 19, 2016," which conflicts with the priority claim to the same 2016‑05‑19 German application and with the 2017 family data. I flag this rather than resolve it.

---

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A measuring transducer includes a support body, a curved oscillatable measuring tube, an electrodynamic exciter, at least one sensor for registering oscillations of the measuring tube, and an operating circuit. The measuring tube has first and second bending oscillation modes, which are mirror symmetric to a measuring tube transverse plane and have first and second media‑density‑dependent eigenfrequencies f1, f3 with f3 > f1. The measuring tube has a peak secant with an oscillation node in the second mirror symmetric bending oscillation mode. The operating circuit is adapted to drive the exciter conductor loop with a signal exciting the second mirror symmetric bending oscillation mode. The exciter conductor loop has an ohmic resistance RΩ and a mode‑dependent mutual induction reactance Rg3 which depends on the position of the exciter. The exciter is so positioned that a dimensionless power factor

pc3 = 4·RΩ·Rg3 / (RΩ + Rg3)²

has a value of not less than 0.2.

---

Technical core (why it matters)

Conventional Coriolis transducers excite the f1 (drive) mode with the driver at the tube curve peak. This patent addresses exciting the f3 mode as well, for improved density/flow accuracy (especially gas‑laden/multiphase media, per DE 10 2015 122 661 and DE 10 2015 112 737, cited in the Background). The stated problem: the f3 mode has an oscillation node plane near the tube peak on its inner side, so placing the exciter at the amplitude maximum is ineffective. At high mode amplitudes the tube velocity makes the mutual induction reactance Rg3 dominate the ohmic resistance RΩ, so the induced voltage opposes the exciter voltage and chokes the drive current. The invention therefore positions the exciter based on a dimensionless "power factor" (peaking at 1 when Rgi = RΩ), rather than at the point of maximum amplitude. Definitions include a measuring tube longitudinal plane (minimizing the integrated squared separation of the tube centerline from the plane) and a measuring tube transverse plane (perpendicular to it, the tube's mirror plane).

---

Independent claim — plain language (claim 1)

Claim 1 — a vibration‑type measuring transducer, comprising:

1. Structure: a support body; at least one curved measuring tube for guiding a medium, with inlet‑ and outlet‑side end sections by which it is held in the support body, leaving a freely oscillatable section; an operating circuit; an electrodynamic exciter in an exciter conductor loop for exciting bending oscillations; and at least one sensor for registering oscillations.

2. Geometric definitions: a measuring tube longitudinal plane is the plane for which the integral (along the oscillatable section's centerline) of the squared distances from the resting‑position centerline to the plane is minimized; a measuring tube transverse plane is perpendicular to it, and the tube is mirror symmetric to that transverse plane.

3. Modes: the tube has a first bending oscillation mode that is mirror symmetric to the transverse plane with first eigenfrequency depending on medium density, and a second such mode with a second, higher eigenfrequency.

4. Peak secant / node: the tube has a peak secant intersecting outer‑surface points that (at rest) lie on the intersection line of the longitudinal and transverse planes; that peak secant has an oscillation node when the tube oscillates in the second mode.

5. The operative limitation: the operating circuit is adapted to drive the exciter loop to excite the second bending oscillation mode; the loop has an ohmic resistance RΩ and a mutual induction reactance Rg3 (position‑dependent); and the exciter is positioned such that

   pc3 = 4·RΩ·Rg3 / (RΩ + Rg3)² ≥ 0.2,

   measured with the tube filled with water at 300 K and excited at the second mode's eigenfrequency.

No other independent claim exists in the granted patent. Claims 2–19 are all dependent (2–7 and 14–19 directly on claim 1; 8–13 through claim 8/9). Notable dependent‑claim coverage: the node‑plane geometry and spacing in outer diameters (3, 5–7); the peak‑plane lying between the node plane and the exciter (4); dual‑mode operation and a pc1 ≥ 0.3 requirement (8, 9); a product/total power factor pc1.3 (10–12); RΩ ≥ 90% attributable to exciter coil(s) and/or limiting resistance (14, 19); a pair of measuring tubes with a shared transverse plane, excited relative to one another (15, 16); and a symmetric pair of sensors (17).

Claim drafting irregularity to flag: claim 10 recites pc1.3 = pc1·pc3 "is not less than 0.2," and dependent claim 11 repeats the identical 0.2 threshold — redundant on its face, whereas the specification recites "not less than 0.2, especially not less than 0.4 and especially preferably not less than 0.7," with claim 12 capturing the 0.7 fallback and claim 18 the standalone pc3 ≥ 0.8 fallback. I report the claims as issued rather than reconciling them.

Numbering shift between publication and grant: the pre‑grant publication US 2019/0162702 A1 shows an apparently independent claim 13, while in the granted patent claim 13 is a dependent claim (pc1 ≥ 0.8). My summary above describes the granted claim set.

---

Verification of secondary sources vs. primary text

• PubChem (US‑11073499‑B2) corroborates title, inventors (Rieder/Eckert/Bitto/Zhu), assignee (Flowtec AG), priority 2016‑05‑19, filing 2017‑04‑17, grant 2021‑07‑27, and the same 15 cited references — consistent with the primary text.
• Justia (11073499) reproduces the identical claim 1 and dependent claims — consistent.
• No source found contradicts the primary text; the only contradictions are intra‑document (the PCT filing‑date issue noted above).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11073499.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Summary

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,073,499 was found. Based on the searches I was able to run, I found no district court complaint, CAFC appeal, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding in which US 11,073,499 has been asserted or challenged.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries intended to surface litigation records:

• US patent 11073499 litigation
• "11073499" patent lawsuit defendant
• "11073499" infringement complaint district court
• unifiedpatents.com litigation "11073499"
• Endress+Hauser Flowtec patent lawsuit 11073499 Coriolis
• docket navigator "11073499" patent case

The only hits tying the literal string "11073499" to a specific document were patent bibliographic records for the patent itself (e.g., the Google Patents page and the PubChem patent record at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-11073499-B2), which are not litigation. All other results were unrelated cases that happened to be returned by the search engine for other reasons (e.g., Neonode v. Samsung/Apple, MCOM IP cases, various NPE suits) and do not mention US 11,073,499.

I did not find any entry for this patent on the Unified Patents litigation portal, and no CAFC opinion or order referencing it.

Case table

Important caveats (please read before relying on this)

1. I could not directly query the authoritative litigation databases. PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, and RPX/Unified Patents' full litigation tables are gated (login/paywall), and my searches did not return their case-level records for this patent. My conclusion is therefore based on open-web search results only, not on a complete PACER docket sweep.
2. Absence of evidence is not conclusive. It remains possible that a case exists that is not indexed in the sources my searches reached (e.g., a very recent filing, an unfiled/just-served complaint, or a case where the patent is identified only by a family member).
3. Distinguish post-grant and foreign proceedings from litigation. For completeness: I found no PTAB IPR/PGR or ex parte reexamination against US 11,073,499 either. This patent has family members EP3458814B1 and CN109154519B, and European opposition proceedings against the EP member are a realistic possibility — but I found no record of any such opposition in my searches, and in any event an EPO opposition is not US litigation and would not appear in the sources you asked me to check.
4. Context on the patent owner. The patent is assigned to Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG (a large, practicing manufacturer of Coriolis/vibration flowmeters), which is the type of entity that typically enforces patents rather than being a frequent defendant. This is background context only — it does not establish that no suit exists.

Recommendation

To confirm a negative with confidence, the following would need to be checked directly:

• PACER / CourtListener RECAP docket search for "11,073,499" and for Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG as plaintiff.
• Docket Navigator / Lex Machina / RPX patent-level litigation reports for US 11,073,499.
• USPTO PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Board API / PTAB Center for AIA proceedings.
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search and the patent's "Litigation" tab on Google Patents (the Google Patents page for this patent, as fetched, showed no litigation section populated).

If you can grant me access to a specific litigation database or want me to run additional narrower searches (e.g., by assignee name, or by the German priority application DE 10 2016 109 251.7), I'm happy to continue and update this result.

I'll start by verifying the canonical empty list against live searches for any PTAB activity on this patent.

Let me run additional targeted searches to be thorough.

Let me check the Unified Patents portal entry (which often lists PTAB challenges) and the PTAB E2E for the patent owner.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 11,073,499 B2

Patent: US 11,073,499 B2 ("Measuring transducer of vibration-type"; Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG; granted 2021-07-27; adjusted expiration 2038-03-08)
Source of record: USPTO Open Data Portal structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file"), as supplied in the prompt.

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,073,499 as of the most recent ODP ingest, and my supplementary open-web searches surfaced none either. The breakdown is: active = 0 · claims invalidated = 0 · claims sustained = 0 · settled = 0 · institution denied = 0.

Bottom-line defensive posture: this patent has never been tested at the PTAB, so all of its claims — including claim 1 and its f3 power-factor limitation — remain presumptively valid and fully enforceable. A defendant cannot point to any IPR cancellation of claim 1 or any estoppel-laden FWD. At the same time, that cuts both ways: because no petitioner has yet run IA art against this patent, the § 315(b) one-year bar and § 315(e) estoppel landscape is a blank slate — nothing prevents a defendant from filing the first IPR, and nothing has been foreclosed. This is a "greenfield" patent from a PTAB-defense standpoint: no help from prior outcomes, no harm from them either.

The absence of any AIA challenge is unsurprising but notable given the assignee. Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG is a large, practicing operating company (not an NPE), and the family members (EP3458814B1, CN109154519B) sit in a crowded Coriolis/vibration-meter art space (CPC G01F1/84xx) where invalidity challenges are common. The fact that competitors have not attacked this particular patent is a weak positive signal for validity at the margins, though it may simply reflect the patent's modest commercial assertion history (see litigation section: no lawsuits identified).

---

No proceedings to report

The structured PTAB block returned no AIA trial proceedings. I attempted to corroborate this against live sources and, within the search budget available, found no contradicting evidence:

• Searches for PTAB inter partes review US 11073499 Endress+Hauser, "11073499" IPR petition Patent Trial and Appeal Board, "Endress" "Flowtec" IPR2024/IPR2023/IPR2025, and ptacts.uspto.gov "11073499" returned no PTAB petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal referencing this patent.
• The only authoritative records tying the literal string to a document were bibliographic (Google Patents, PubChem US-11073499-B2), neither of which is a litigation or trial record.
• The Google Patents page as fetched shows no "Litigation" section populated and no PTAB-family entries beyond the ordinary family members (EP3458814B1, CN109154519B, WO2017198439A1, US20190162702A1, DE102016109251A1).

Because there are no proceedings, the per-proceeding template (type, filing date, status, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal, defensive value) has nothing to fill. I am not inventing proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions to populate it.

What I did not verify (caveats — read before relying on this)

Consistent with the litigation summary already generated for this patent, my conclusion rests on open-web search plus the ODP structured feed, not on a direct query of the authoritative PTAB dockets. Specifically:

1. PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (ptacts.uspto.gov) was not directly queryable by me for a patent-number-scoped AIA-proceeding table; I could only surface indexed documents via search. A recently filed petition that has not been indexed could exist.
2. Docket Navigator / Lex Machina / Unified Patents' full PTAB tables are gated. The Unified Patents portal page for this patent was not reachable within the search budget.
3. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The correct, defensible statement is: no PTAB proceeding was found in the ODP feed or in open-web sources as of 2026-09-30.
4. Foreign proceedings are distinct. The family includes EP3458814B1 (granted 2023-07-26). An EPO opposition against that member is a realistic possibility, but any such proceeding (a) would not be an AIA trial, (b) would not appear in the PTAB block, and (c) I found no record of one in the searches run. Do not conflate an EPO opposition with a PTAB outcome.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 19 claims of US 11,073,499 are UNTESTED. Independent claim 1 remains intact, as do dependent claims 2–19 (including the notable dependent claims 9–13 that add the first-mode power factor pc₁ and the composite pc₁.₃ = pc₁·pc₃ limitations, and claims 14/19 on the ohmic-resistance composition). There is no canceled subject matter — nothing has been held unpatentable, and conversely nothing has been confirmed by a panel either.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR petition has been filed, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel burdening any party, and no § 315(b) one-year clock has started for any real party in interest (that clock runs only from service of a complaint alleging infringement, and the litigation section identified no complaint). Practically: a defendant currently on the receiving end of a demand letter retains the full universe of prior-art grounds — every § 102/§ 103 combination, plus § 112 written-description/enablement challenges to the functional "power factor" limitations, remains available in a first-filed IPR or PGR. Nothing is "reasonably could have raised"-barred.

Pattern signals. None available. There is no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents challenge identified), and no PTAB-to-CAFC appeal history for this patent — because there is no proceeding at all. The family's other IPRs/appeals, if any, are not on the record I could retrieve for US 11,073,499 specifically.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant/respondent being asserted against (or threatened with) US 11,073,499:

• Do not expect PTAB help from existing outcomes — there are none. Any IPR-based defense must be built from scratch. The silver lining is that you would be the first mover: no § 315(e) estoppel, no § 315(b) bar yet running, and the patent owner has no favorable FWD to hide behind.
• Identify when (or if) you were served. The one-year § 315(b) deadline to petition for IPR/PGR runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. The litigation summary found no complaint, so confirm your own docket. If a demand letter only (no suit) has issued, the clock has not started — but do not rely on that if a complaint is filed.
• Attack surface worth scoping: the claim 1 limitation reciting an exciter positioned so the dimensionless power factor pc₃ ≥ 0.2 is functional and defined only relative to "water at 300 K." That invites both prior-art § 103 attacks (exciter placement relative to an f3 node plane) and § 112(b)/(a) indefiniteness, written-description, and enablement challenges, since the claim recites a result rather than a structure. The claim-14/19 "at least 90% caused by a coil… or limiting resistance" limitation is likewise a candidate for § 112 scrutiny.
• Prior-art starting points from the patent's own face: the 15 references cited (e.g., EP1729099A1 Tertiary mode oscillatory Coriolis flowmeter (Oval Corp.), US20110036179A1 / CN102016522A Very high frequency vibratory flow meter (Micro Motion), DE102015112737A1 and DE102015122661A1 (Endress+Hauser, the f3-based density/gas-load methods)) are the natural first-cut IPR art the applicant itself flagged. The pre-filing German search report (2017-01-01) and WIPO ISA report (2017-07-20) should be pulled to see what the examiners considered and, more importantly, what they did not cite.

If an IPR is filed (now or later), the milestone cadence is statutory — institution decision within 3 months of the ±3-month preliminary-response window, then a hard 12-month trial deadline from institution to FWD, extendable up to 6 months only for good cause.

If you simply want to confirm the negative: the following would need direct, gated access — PTAB E2E / PTAB Center AIA search scoped to US 11,073,499; Docket Navigator or Lex Machina PTAB reports; and the unifiedpatents.com portal page for US-11073499-B2. I could not complete those checks within the available search budget. Until they are run, the accurate statement remains: no PTAB activity on file.

I'll verify the assignment record for this patent before writing up the ownership chain.

Let me check for any additional recorded assignments or security interests beyond the one in the patent's legal events.

Ownership-chain verification note (read first)

I could not load the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search UI directly — assignmentcenter.uspto.gov is a JavaScript app that did not return record-level results to my searches, and assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (the legacy mirror) likewise returned no indexed record page for this patent number. The reel/frame data below therefore comes from the Google Patents "Legal Events" and "Reassignment" record for US 11,073,499, which mirrors the same underlying USPTO assignment data. The correspondent-of-record field is not exposed in that mirror. I flag this as a data gap rather than filling it by inference.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment: No unusual pattern. This is a classic four-person in-house R&D team at a single operating company, all of whom continued to file E+H applications after this one (Zhu's later E+H filing bears a 2017 priority date; Rieder's later E+H filings extend into 2019–2021). There is no evidence of any inventor departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and consequently no fire-sale precursor. Inventor mobility could not be examined beyond published patent activity — I have no employment records, so I state this as "not observed," not "confirmed negative."

Contradiction flag (bibliographic, not ownership): The patent's own CROSS-REFERENCE paragraph states the PCT (PCT/EP2017/060076) was "filed on May 19, 2016," while the Google Patents family table gives the PCT filing date as 2017-04-27 and the US filing date as 2017-04-17. A PCT application cannot predate the 2016-05-19 priority application it claims — the cross-reference date is an error in the patent text (2016-05-19 is the DE priority date, DE 10 2016 109 251.7). This does not affect the assignment chain but is worth noting for any file-history review.

---

Original assignee

Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, Kägenstrasse 7, CH-4153 Reinach, Switzerland (named on the face of the patent, and as "ENDRESS+HAUSER FLOWTEC AG, SWITZERLAND" in the recorded assignment).

• Primary line of business: industrial process instrumentation — specifically flow measurement. The patent itself recites the commercial context: "the Coriolis mass flow measuring device, and/or density measuring device, can be installed in a pipeline." Flowtec is the E+H group entity for Coriolis/vibronic (and ultrasonic) flow and density transducers.
• Product embodying the claims: Endress+Hauser Flowtec ships vibronic/Coriolis measuring transducers (the Promass line of instruments) whose operating electronics excite the f1 mode and, for gas-laden / multiphase media, higher symmetric modes — exactly the f1/f3 excitation architecture claim 1 recites. The patent's own reference to as-yet-unpublished E+H applications DE 10 2015 122 661 and DE 10 2015 112 737 (density/flow measurement of gas-laden liquids using the f3 mode) confirms this is an internal R&D line the assignee intended to commercialize, not a paper portfolio. I could not map claim 1 to a specific model number from public sources, so treat "ships an embodying product" as high confidence, model-level unverified.
• Current status: Operating. Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the privately held, family-controlled Endress+Hauser Group; no insolvency, no acquisition, no dissolution found. Its US counterpart, Endress+Hauser Inc. (Greenwood, Indiana), is the listed US representative on Flowtec products. Maintenance fee for the 4th year was paid 2024-12-20 (per Google Patents legal events), consistent with an owner actively maintaining the asset.

---

Assignment timeline

One (1) recorded assignment exists. There are no post-issuance transfers, no security interests, no name changes, and no releases on record.

• Executed 2018-09-19 through 2018-09-24 / recorded 2018-11-20 — Reel 047550/0262
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor → employer), the standard pre-national-stage-execution instrument used to perfect US title at §371 entry
  • Assignors: RIEDER, ALFRED; ECKERT, GERHARD; BITTO, ENNIO; ZHU, HAO ("AND OTHERS" in the official abstract; all four named inventors)
  • Assignee: ENDRESS+HAUSER FLOWTEC AG (SWITZERLAND)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources I could reach. The Google Patents reassignment record does not surface the correspondent/attorney-of-record field, and the Assignment Center UI did not return record-level pages to my queries. No correspondent recurrence test can be run — but note this is a single-link chain, so even a known correspondent would carry essentially zero NPE diagnostic weight (see Signal 3).
  • Context: Ordinary inventor-to-employer title perfection accompanying US national-stage entry of PCT/EP2017/060076. The 5-month gap between execution (Sept 2018) and recording (Nov 2018) is routine. This is not a post-issuance transfer — it predates grant (2021-07-27) by ~3 years.

Searches run for additional records (all negative): "11073499" assignment Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG patent assignment search; Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG "security agreement" patent assignment USPTO; USPTO assignment reel 047550 frame 0262 Endress Hauser Flowtec; plus the earlier litigation sweep. No second reel/frame, no security agreement, no merger or change-of-name record surfaced. The only assignment-related entity hits were European patent-bulletin listings naming E+H as applicant/patentee — consistent with, not evidence of, a transfer.

Cross-reference summary:

• Google Patents legal events — one reassignment event (2018-11-20) → same Reel 047550/0262; plus fee payment 2024-12-20 (4th year, large entity). No "Assignment" events after 2018.
• SEC filings — N/A. Neither assignor nor assignee is a US-reporting issuer; Endress+Hauser is a private Swiss group with no 10-K/8-K disclosure obligation. No privateering evidence obtainable from this channel.
• RPX / Unified Patents asserter directories — no match for "Endress+Hauser Flowtec" as a plaintiff/asserter. (Consistent with the no-litigation finding in the prior Litigation section.)
• USPTO PEDS/ODP — assignee on the issued patent is Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG; no intervening owner.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11073499
    2016 : DE priority application filed
    2017 : US national stage filed
    2018 : Inventors assign to Endress Hauser Flowtec
    2021 : Patent issued as US 11073499 B2
    2024 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole assignee on the only recorded assignment (Reel 047550/0262, recorded 2018-11-20) is Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, a named operating subsidiary of a manufacturing group at a real corporate address (Kägenstrasse 7, Reinach). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity, no registered-agent service address, no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Current assignee is Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG. I compared against the standard NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) and against Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff listings. No match. The only web hits for "Endress + Hauser Flowtec" are patent-office journals, product literature, and IP-owner profiles — not asserter directories.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT (untestable as to identity). Only one link exists, and the correspondent is not exposed in the data I could reach. Flagging the closest analogue honestly: the patent's EP family member (EP 3458814B1) and other E+H filings routinely list Swiss/German patent-attorney firms of record (e.g. the firm handling E+H's CH filings), but none of those is a "recording correspondent" on this US chain and none is on an NPE list. A single appearance is not a finding by the task's own standard; with one link there is no recurrence to measure.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Exactly zero transfers after the 2018 inventor→company assignment; zero post-issuance transfers over the ~5 years since grant (2021-07-27). The chain is one hop long.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit naming this patent has been identified (per the prior Litigation section), and there is no assignment within any window before such a suit. The nearest transfer predates the first possible suit by years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 for Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG or its parent found; the assignee is a profitable privately held group, and the fee-payment event (2024-12-20, 4th year maintenance fee, large entity) shows an owner funding the asset. Contrast the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid pattern cited in the brief — none of those fact patterns is present.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating-company→NPE transfer plus NPE assertion on the transferor's behalf. There is no transfer out of the operating company at all, so the mechanism is unavailable on this record. No SEC or Patent Progress / EFF coverage ties this patent to such an arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an operating manufacturer, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse-signal (neutralization) does not apply.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an explicit caveat on the "assertion" limb.

This is the correct label for the owner: the only assignee in the chain is Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG (Reel 047550/0262, recorded 2018-11-20), which is a practicing instrument manufacturer whose products sit on the f1/f3 vibronic-excitation architecture claim 1 recites, and which has maintained the patent through the 4th-year fee (2024-12-20). All eight NPE signals are NOT PRESENT, and this is not a "could be a shell" situation dressed up as a finding — there is literally no second owner to evaluate. However, the verdict taxonomy assumes an entity that is suing: per the prior (authoritative) Litigation section, no infringement suit, PTAB proceeding, or ITC action naming US 11,073,499 was found, so the "assertion" prong is unmet. Read the label as "held by an operating company, no NPE activity"; if a litigation prong is mandatory for your purposes, the record falls to Insufficient data only in the narrow sense that the chain consists of the original assignment alone — not because ownership is ambiguous.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center and the legacy mirror assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search patent number 11073499; the record to look for is Reel 047550, Frame 0262. Invoice-level confirmation of the two unresolved fields (correspondent of record; any unindexed later security interest) requires the Assignment Center's record image, which I could not open. Google Patents corroboration: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11073499/en (Legal Events tab).

I'll start by verifying the patent record and then examine each cited reference. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 11,073,499 B2

1. USPTO search scope and result

I queried for the literal identifier 11073499. The record returned is US 11,073,499 B2 — "Measuring transducer of vibration-type," app. US 16/302,769, Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG; granted 2021-07-27; priority DE 10 2016 109 251.7 (2016-05-19). This is confirmed by the primary text, PubChem (US-11073499-B2) and Justia, and matches the bibliographic record already established in the summary section above — I will not repeat it.

Scope limitation (stated up front): My searches reached Google Patents / PubChem / Justia and the open web, not the USPTO Patent Center "References Cited" examiner annotations or the EP/CN prosecution files. What I have is the reference list printed on the face of US 11,073,499 (15 patent citations + 2 search reports). The § 102 "anticipation" opinions below are therefore my analytical mapping of each reference's apparent disclosure onto the granted claims, not a restatement of an examiner's rejection. All 15 references were before the examiner at allowance, which strongly implies none of them was treated as anticipatory of granted claim 1 (see § 5).

---

2. The anticipation yardstick — granted claim 1 elements

For a § 102 anticipation of claim 1, a single reference must disclose all of:

Dependent claims 2–19 narrow E1/E3/E5/E9/E10 and add pc1 (claim 9), pc1.3 (10–12), the ≥90 % RΩ limitation (14, 19), a tube pair (15, 16), and a symmetric sensor pair (17).

The dispositive element for anticipation is E9–E11. None of the cited references appears to disclose a position-selected exciter judged by a dimensionless power factor derived from the mutual induction reactance Rg and ohmic resistance RΩ. That is the point of novelty surfaced by the specification (the pc3 derivation, Eq. 8–9).

---

3. The 15 patent citations — reference-by-reference

Dates below are exactly as printed in the patent's citation table (priority date / publication date). I do not auto-correct them.

3.1 EP 1130367 A1

• Full citation: EP 1130367 A1 — "Coriolis mass flow rate/density sensor with a single curved measuring tube," Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG.
• Dates: priority 2000-03-01; published 2001-09-05.
• Description: A single curved measuring tube Coriolis mass-flow/density sensor; establishes the curved-tube transducer architecture (E1), supports a first bending mode whose frequency is density-dependent (E7), with electrodynamic exciter and sensor (E3, E4).
• § 102 assessment: Potentially anticipates only the generic structural aspects (E1, E2, E3, E4, E7) as they appear in a broad reading of claim 1 — not claim 1 as a whole, because it lacks E8 (second mirror-symmetric density-dependent mode), E9 (peak-secant node), and E10/E11 (f3 drive and pc3). Its real § 102 value is against very broad genus claims, and it is not anticipatory of any granted claim as issued.

3.2 US 2001/0035055 A1

• Full citation: US 2001/0035055 A1 — Wolfgang Drahm — "Mass flow rate/density sensor with a single curved measuring tube."
• Dates: priority 2000-05-04; published 2001-11-01.
• Description: US counterpart/companion to the EP '367 disclosure; single curved measuring tube, electrodynamic driver and pick-off.
• § 102 assessment: Same as 3.1 — structure only. No disclosure of the f3 power-factor element; not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.3 US 2002/0144557 A1

• Full citation: US 2002/0144557 A1 — Wolfgang Drahm — "Electromechanical transducer."
• Dates: priority 2001-02-22; published 2002-10-10.
• Description: Concerns the electromechanical/electrodynamic transducer (driver) itself — the coil-and-magnet exciter class recited in E3, and the induced-voltage / back-EMF physics that the present patent later formalizes as Rg.
• § 102 assessment: Relevant to E3 (and its enabling detail), but silent on E5/E6 (the specific least-squares/tranverse-plane definitions), E9, and E11. Not anticipatory of claim 1. May be background art for the exciter-loop element.

3.4 EP 1296119 A1

• Full citation: EP 1296119 A1 — "Vibration type measuring sensor," Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG.
• Dates: priority 2001-09-21; published 2003-03-26.
• Description: Vibration-type measuring sensor; general oscillator/exciter/sensor arrangement, likely including node/coupler discussion (E1, E3, E4).
• § 102 assessment: Structural genus art only. No f3-node/pc3 teaching. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.5 EP 1729099 A1 — (Oval Corporation) — closest art on the mode issue

• Full citation: EP 1729099 A1 — "Tertiary mode oscillatory Coriolis flowmeter," Oval Corporation. (Family: EP 1729099 B1 granted 2017-05-24; US 7,437,949; US 7,409,873; EP 1790955 A1.)
• Dates: priority 2004-03-24 (JP 2004-086041); published 2006-12-06.
• Description (from retrieved abstract): The flow tube is driven in the tertiary mode. The single driver is deliberately arranged at the central antinode H2 of the tertiary-mode vibration, and the two vibration sensors at the other antinodes H1, H3; the excitation circuit uses a phase-inverting positive-feedback loop so the opposed-phase displacement polarities are made in-phase.
• § 102 assessment — the most important one:
  • It discloses driving a higher-order (tertiary, i.e., f3-type) mode of a curved Conduit — element E8/E10 in substance.
  • However, its driver-placement doctrine is the opposite of the present invention's: Oval places the driver at the f3 antinode (maximum amplitude), whereas US 11,073,499 expressly warns that "the selection of a site of maximum oscillation amplitude as exciter position … is, in given cases, to be avoided," because Rg then swamps RΩ.
  • It does not disclose E5/E6 definitions, E9 (peak-secant node), or E11 (pc3 ≥ 0.2).
  • Conclusion: Potentially anticipates only a bare "excite the tertiary mode" concept. It does not anticipate granted claim 1; it is the strongest § 103 combination candidate (see § 5).

3.6 CN 102016522 A and 3.7 US 2011/0036179 A1 — (Micro Motion) — very-high-frequency mode

• Full citation (3.6): CN 102016522 A — 微动公司 (Micro Motion) — "Very high frequency vibratory flow meter."
• Full citation (3.7): US 2011/0036179 A1 — Micro Motion, Inc. — "Very high frequency vibratory flow meter." (WO 2009/134827.)
• Dates: priority 2008-05-01; published 2011-04-13 (CN) / 2011-02-17 (US).
• Description (from retrieved text): Vibrating the conduit at a very high frequency (>1,500 Hz, >2,000 Hz) so that multiphase decoupling/compressibility errors are eliminated; the meter may be operated "at a first bending mode" or "at higher bending mode frequencies … a second, third, or higher bending mode." The frequency is set by conduit stiffness/length/aspect ratio/geometry/node positions.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses excitation in a higher bending mode on a Coriolis meter (E8/E10 flavour) and even node-position design. But it is directed to frequency selection to avoid multiphase error, not to exciter position judged by pc3, and it does not disclose E9's peak-secant node or E11. Not anticipatory of claim 1. These are the strongest § 103 references on the "operate at a higher bending mode" motivation (they supply the gas/multiphase-accuracy rationale the patent's Background also cites).

3.8 CN 102472653 A

• Full citation: CN 102472653 A — 恩德斯+豪斯流量技术股份有限公司 (Endress+Hauser Flowtec) — "Vibration-type measuring transducer as well as measuring device with such a measuring transducer."
• Dates: priority 2009-07-24; published 2012-05-23.
• Description: Vibration-type measuring transducer plus a measuring device; curved-tube oscillator, sensor arrangement. Associated with the Huber et al. line (cf. US 8,596,142).
• § 102 assessment: Genus structural art (E1–E4, E7). No f3-node/pc3 teaching. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.9 US 2012/0096950 A1

• Full citation: US 2012/0096950 A1 — Yokogawa Electric Corporation — "Coriolis mass flowmeter."
• Dates: priority 2010-10-21; published 2012-04-26.
• Description: Coriolis mass flowmeter; driver/sensor arrangement and signal processing for a vibrating curved-tube meter.
• § 102 assessment: Structural/generic art. No higher-mode-node or pc3 disclosure. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.10 CN 103534558 A

• Full citation: CN 103534558 A — 恩德斯+豪斯流量技术股份有限公司 (Endress+Hauser Flowtec) — "Measuring system having a vibration-type measuring transducer."
• Dates: priority 2010-11-11; published 2014-01-22.
• Description: Measuring system with a vibration-type transducer (oscillator + operating electronics). Related generally to the Flowtec transducer family.
• § 102 assessment: Genus art. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.11 US 2012/0167697 A1

• Full citation: US 2012/0167697 A1 — Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG — "Measuring transducer of the vibration type as well as measuring system formed therewith." (Corresponds to US 9,052,224; four-tube arrangement.)
• Dates: priority 2010-12-30; published 2012-07-05.
• Description (from retrieved US 9,052,224 text): A multi-tube (four-tube) measuring transducer with flow dividers, coupling elements, and an exciter mechanism for producing/maintaining oscillations; the exciter/sensor and coupling-node architecture is described in detail.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E1–E4 and the notion of oscillation nodes formed by coupling elements. It does not disclose the least-squares longitudinal plane (E5), the f3 peak-secant node (E9), or the pc3 exciter-positioning (E11). Not anticipatory of claim 1. Useful § 103 art for the "excite a mode using a positioned driver" sub-combination.

3.12 US 2014/0238140 A1 — (Micro Motion) — closest art on the mutual-inductance element

• Full citation: US 2014/0238140 A1 — Micro Motion, Inc. — "Collocated sensor for a vibrating fluid meter." (Corresponds to US 9,851,242; EP 2771656 B1; AU 2011-370625 B2.)
• Dates: priority 2011-10-26; published 2014-08-28.
• Description (from retrieved text): A combined driver/pick-off component with the driver wire and pick-off wire wound around the same bobbin, sharing a magnet. The back-EMF is computed as VbEMF = Vtotal − M·ẏ, where M is the mutual inductance between the two coils; the design is aimed at simplifying back-EMF compensation by exploiting/controlling mutual inductance.
• § 102 assessment: This is the reference in the list that most nearly touches the mutual-inductance / back-EMF concept underlying the claimed Rg terms. But it addresses mutual inductance between a driver coil and a pick-off coil for back-EMF compensation, not the mutual induction reactance Rg3 that depends on the exciter's position and enters the pc3 ratio. It discloses nothing of E5/E6/E9 or the pc3 ≥ 0.2 criterion. Not anticipatory of claim 1. It is, however, the best § 103 reference for the "mutual induction reactance" facet.

3.13 CN 105008871 A

• Full citation: CN 105008871 A — 恩德斯+豪斯流量技术股份有限公司 (Endress+Hauser Flowtec) — "Vibration-type measurement transducer and measurement system formed therewith."
• Dates: priority 2012-12-30; published 2015-10-28.
• Description: Vibration-type transducer + measurement system; curved-tube oscillator with exciter and sensors.
• § 102 assessment: Genus art. Not anticipatory of claim 1.

3.14 DE 10 2015 112 737 A1 — (E+H) — the f1+f3 density method

• Full citation: DE 10 2015 112 737 A1 — "Method for determining a physical parameter of a gas," Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG.
• Dates: priority 2015-08-03; published 2017-02-09.
• Description (per the '499 Background): Discloses that density/flow accuracy is significantly improved by taking f3 into account in addition to f1, especially for gases. This is the motivational reference for using the second mirror-symmetric mode.
• § 102 assessment — important caveat: Its publication date (2017-02-09) is AFTER the '499 effective filing date (2016-05-19), and the '499 specification itself calls it an "as yet unpublished patent application." As a German application it is not § 102(a)(1) art (not publicly available before the critical date) and is not § 102(a)(2) art unless a US/PCT-designating-US counterpart was effectively filed earlier. Its real role is background / § 103 motivation, not § 102. It does not anticipate claim 1.

3.15 DE 10 2015 122 661 A1 — (E+H) — gas-laden-liquid density method

• Full citation: DE 10 2015 122 661 A1 — "Method for determining a physical parameter of a gas-laden liquid," Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG.
• Dates: priority 2015-12-23; published 2017-06-29.
• Description: Companion to 3.14 for gas-laden/multiphase liquids; again motivates using the f3 eigenfrequency for improved density/flow accuracy.
• § 102 assessment: Same timing caveat as 3.14 — published 2017-06-29, after the critical date; an "as yet unpublished" German application → § 103 motivation only, not § 102 prior art against US 11,073,499. Does not anticipate claim 1.

---

4. Non-patent citations

---

5. Most-relevant prior art — ranking and conclusion

Ranked by proximity to the claimed subject matter:

1. EP 1729099 A1 (Oval) — the only cited reference that squarely addresses driving the tertiary/higher-order bending mode of a curved Coriolis tube and driver-placement in that mode. It is the single best starting reference, but its driver-at-antinode teaching diverges from the claimed pc3-based positioning.
2. US 2011/0036179 A1 & CN 102016522 A (Micro Motion) — provide the operating-at-a-higher-bending-mode and multiphase-accuracy motivation.
3. US 2014/0238140 A1 (Micro Motion) — the only reference touching mutual inductance M / back-EMF — the physical quantity from which the claimed Rg3 is built.
4. DE 10 2015 112 737 A1 & DE 10 2015 122 661 A1 (E+H) — the f1+f3 density determination motivation (background, post-critical-date publication).
5. The remaining eight references (EP 1130367, US 2001/0035055, US 2002/0144557, EP 1296119, CN 102472653, US 2012/0096950, CN 103534558, US 2012/0167697, CN 105008871) — generic curved-tube transducer / exciter / sensor art.

Bottom line on § 102: No cited reference anticipates granted claim 1. Every one of them lacks at least the E9 + E10 + E11 combination — a peak secant having an oscillation node in the second mirror-symmetric mode plus an operating circuit driving that second mode plus an exciter positioned so that pc3 = 4RΩRg3/(RΩ+Rg3)² ≥ 0.2. The § 102 exposure is limited to partial/genus readings of claim 1's structural elements (E1–E4, E7) and to certain dependent features where a reference may disclose a sub-element; the pc3 and pc1/pc1.3 limitations of claims 1, 9 and 10–12 are not met by any single reference in the list.

The realistic challenge to this patent would be § 103: EP 1729099 (drive the f3/tertiary mode) + US 2014/0238140 (mutual inductance / back-EMF between driver and pick-off) + the E+H German applications (why f3 improves density) — combined with routine exciter-position optimization. That is an obviousness theory, not anticipation, and the specification's specific power-factor derivation (Eq. 8–9) is the applicant's apparent rebuttal.

---

6. Caveats you should weigh before relying on this

1. I did not obtain the examiner's annotations. The "potentially anticipates" designations are my mappings, not PTAB/examiner findings. The fact that all 15 references appear on the granted patent's face means the examiner considered them and still allowed claim 1 — i.e., the office did not find anticipation.
2. I did not retrieve full text for every reference. Descriptions of EP 1130367, US 2001/0035055, US 2002/0144557, EP 1296119, CN 102472653, US 2012/0096950, CN 103534558 and CN 105008871 are based on their titles, assignees and the patent's own characterization; I did not read those specifications end-to-end, so a hidden disclosure of a node or power-factor-type limitation cannot be ruled out.
3. Timing disqualifies the two E+H German applications as § 102 art (published after the 2016-05-19 critical date and, being German, outside § 102(a)(2) absent a US/PCT counterpart). Verify whether any US counterpart was effectively filed before 2016-05-19 before treating them as prior art at all.
4. Family members are not prior art. EP 3458814 B1, CN 109154519 B, DE 102016109251 A1 and WO 2017/198439 A1 are the same invention in other jurisdictions, not references against US 11,073,499.
5. "Families citing" and "Similar documents" are later or unrelated (e.g., DE 10 2020 123999, DE 10 2021 118961, US 12,104,940) and are not § 102 prior art as to the 2016 priority.
6. To convert this into an authoritative anticipation/obviousness record, pull (a) the USPTO file wrapper "References Cited"/examiner's search notes and (b) the EPO/CN prosecution files for EP 3458814 / CN 109154519, where any actual § 102/§ 103 citations of these references would appear.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page before assessing obviousness.

Let me examine the remaining key family/reference documents for exciter-position teachings.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,073,499 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Building on the previously generated summary, claim-analysis, and litigation sections. Those sections are treated as authoritative here; I do not repeat them. Two of their findings are load-bearing below: (i) claim 1 is the sole independent claim and its only quantitative restriction is pc3 ≥ 0.2; (ii) the record's intra-document PCT-filing-date contradiction is flagged but not resolved.

---

1. Governing framework and which references actually qualify

Statute. The application was filed 2017‑04‑17 and claims priority to DE 10 2016 109 251.7 (2016‑05‑19). It is therefore an AIA patent; §§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and 103 as amended apply, and the critical date is the effective filing date of 2016‑05‑19 (there is no evidence in the record of an earlier effective date worth litigating).

Qualifying art (third‑party, pre‑2016). The following cited references pre‑date 2016‑05‑19 and are available under § 102(a)(1):

Reference whose status I must flag. The two references the patent itself cites in its Background — DE 10 2015 112 737 A1 (filed 2015‑08‑03, published 2017‑02‑09) and DE 10 2015 122 661 A1 (filed 2015‑12‑23, published 2017‑06‑29) — were published after 2016‑05‑19. They are therefore not § 102(a)(1) art. They could only be § 102(a)(2) art, and because they are the same applicant/assignee (Endress+Hauser Flowtec) as the '499 patent, the § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership exception plausibly removes them from prior art entirely. The '499 specification reinforces this by describing them as "as yet unpublished patent applications" of the applicant. Conclusion: a § 103 case should NOT rest on them. I flag that if they are relied upon (as the applicant's own Background arguably invites), a PHOSITA motive to pursue f3 excitation must instead be drawn from third‑party art — and Oval and Micro Motion supply it independently.

---

2. Decomposition of claim 1 into its obviousness‑relevant strata

(a) Wholly conventional structure. Support body; at least one curved measuring tube held at inlet/outlet end sections with a free oscillatable section; operating circuit; electrodynamic exciter in a conductor loop; at least one oscillation sensor. This is the admitted state of the art ("the electrodynamic exciter is, usually, arranged near the peak of the measuring tube curve on its inner side" — '499 Background) and is disclosed by EP1130367A1, US20010035055A1, US20020144557A1, and US20120167697A1.

(b) Geometric definitional elements. The "measuring tube longitudinal plane" (minimum integrated squared separation) and the perpendicular "measuring tube transverse plane" are simply formal restatements of the tube plane / perpendicular symmetry plane already recited in US20020144557A1 ("tube plane E1"; "second plane of symmetry E2 … intersects tube plane E1 at right angles"). This is a definitional recitation that adds no structural weight beyond the prior art tube geometry.

(c) The f3‑excitation elements. (i) first and second bending modes both mirror‑symmetric to the transverse plane, f3 > f1, both density‑dependent; (ii) a peak secant having an oscillation node in the second mode; (iii) the operating circuit adapted to drive the loop to excite the second mode. Every one of these is taught or suggested by EP1729099A1 (tertiary‑mode drive) and by US20020144557A1 / US6807866 ("f3 natural mode," "at least three antinodes"). The "peak secant · node" element is a kinematic consequence of vibrating a tube in an f3‑like mode shape — it is inherent to the mode, not an added structure.

(d) The only arguably new subject matter — the pc3 ≥ 0.2 criterion. pc3 = 4·RΩ·Rg3/(RΩ+Rg3)² is the classic impedance‑matching / maximum‑power‑transfer expression; it equals 1 exactly when Rg3 = RΩ and falls toward 0 as the ratio departs from unity.

The breadth of the recital matters enormously to the § 103 analysis. Solving pc3 = 0.2:

pc3 ≥ 0.2 is satisfied for any Rg3/RΩ in the approximate range 0.056 → 17.9 (a ~320‑fold span).
For comparison: pc ≥ 0.5 spans ≈ 0.17 → 5.83; pc ≥ 0.8 spans ≈ 0.38 → 2.62.

So the granted claim 1 excludes only exciter placements that are either very nearly nodal (Rg3 ≪ RΩ) or in the regime where Rg3 exceeds RΩ by more than ~18×. Any competent exciter placement on a driven tube — including the conventional "near the peak of the tube curve" placement, and including Oval's central‑antinode placement — will, on its face, produce Rg3/RΩ well inside that window. Claim 1 is therefore, in substance, a claim to "put the exciter somewhere that meaningfully couples to the f3 mode."

---

3. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination 1 — Oval (EP1729099A1 / US7437949) + Micro Motion (US20110036179A1)

Teaches every element: Oval discloses a curved Coriolis flow tube driven in the tertiary mode by a single electrodynamic driver at the central antinode, with the explicit rationale that this is where "the amplitude is maximum and the drive efficiency is high." Micro Motion expressly recognizes that the same meter can run in a low‑frequency first bend mode or a high‑frequency higher bend mode, and that the desired mode is obtained by configuring conduit geometry /vibrational node positions — i.e., by placing the driver relative to the mode's node structure.

Motivation: Micro Motion supplies the third‑party, non‑commonly‑owned reason to run f3/higher modes (improved measurement "across a wider range of operating conditions" and entrained‑gas behaviour — squarely the gas‑laden/multiphase use case the '499 patent targets). Oval supplies both the f3 drive architecture and the express drive‑efficiency optimization rationale. A PHOSITA combining them would place the driver where f3 coupling is efficient — which is precisely what pc3 quantifies.

Result: claim 1 obvious. Claims 2–7 (node‑plane and peak‑plane geometry, ≤3 do / ≤2 do / ≤1 do spacings) and 17 (symmetric sensor pair) fall to routine design‑choice / predictable‑variation reasoning; Oval already places sensors at the two outer antinodes.

Combination 2 — Drahm (US20020144557A1 / US6807866) + Micro Motion (US20110036179A1) + EP1130367A1 (or US20010035055A1)

Drahm provides the structural half of the claim: a curved flow tube symmetric to a tube plane, an excitation system driving the tube in an f3 natural mode having at least three antinodes, and a formal tube‑plane / perpendicular‑symmetry‑plane geometry. EP1130367/US20010035055 supply the single curved tube, support body, and collector architecture and the conventional electrodynamic exciter. Micro Motion supplies the mode‑selection rationale.

Motivation: all three are in the same field (vibration‑type Coriolis/density meters), address the same problem (exciting and detecting non‑fundamental bending modes), and the combination is a mere substitution of a known drive mode (f1) for another known drive mode (f3) in a known transducer to obtain the known benefit of higher‑frequency operation — a KSR‑sanctioned "simple substitution of one known element for another" and "use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way."

Result: claim 1 obvious; claims 8–9 (dual‑mode / pc1 ≥ 0.3) obvious as the natural deployment of a meter capable of both modes; claims 15–16 (tube pair with shared transverse plane) obvious over EP1130367/US20010035055 and US20120167697A1's node‑forming coupling elements.

Combination 3 — Any of the above + the impedance‑matching insight

Even setting aside whether any single reference "recognizes" the mutual induction reactance, the pc3 formulation is nothing more than the maximum‑power‑transfer theorem applied to the exciter loop. The '499 specification itself derives it in three routine lines (its eqs. (5)–(9)) from F = I·e, Ugi = Ẋi·e, and Xi = ni·Qi·Fi — textbook linear‑oscillator and Faraday's‑law relations. A PHOSITA seeking to improve drive efficiency in a loop containing an injective (motional) impedance would, as a matter of ordinary engineering, recognize the Rg = RΩ matching condition and position the exciter accordingly. This is the KSR "known technique, applied to a known device ready for improvement, to yield predictable results" rationale — and the resulting pc3 curve (maximum 1, zero at the nodes) is exactly what physics requires.

---

4. Why the motivation was concrete, not hindsight

• Same field, analogous problem. All cited references are Coriolis/vibration density meters addressing mode excitation, sensing, and node placement.
• Express third‑party motivation. Micro Motion's high‑frequency mode "more accurate measurements across a wider range of operating conditions" and Oval's express drive‑efficiency rationale are exactly the incentives the '499 patent invokes.
• Predictable result. pc3 is a closed‑form electrical expression; repositioning a driver predictably changes Rg3 and hence pc3. There is no unpredictable technical effect claimed — the claim recites only the resulting ratio.
• Numeric breadth. The 0.2 threshold (ratio window ≈ 0.056–17.9) is so wide that it captures essentially all non‑nodal placements, including the admitted conventional placement at the tube peak (claims 5–6 recite exciter within 2 do / 1 do of the peak plane — i.e., the prior‑art location).

---

5. Serious counter‑arguments (stated fairly)

1. "Teaching away." Oval teaches placing the tertiary‑mode driver at the central antinode "where the amplitude is maximum and the drive efficiency is high." The '499 patent's central premise is that maximum‑amplitude placement is to be avoided because tube velocity can push Rg3 so far above RΩ that the induced voltage chokes the drive current. If it can be shown that, for realistic meters in Oval's configuration, Rg3 > ~17.9·RΩ, then Oval's placement would fall outside pc3 ≥ 0.2 and a teaching‑away argument becomes available. But that is a factual predicate the record does not establish — "significantly exceeds" (the '499 Background language) is not "exceeds by ~18×." Absent measurement/simulation data, the teaching‑away argument is weak, and the breadth of the claim cuts against it.
2. No reference discloses Rg as a positioning variable. The cited art is silent on mutual induction reactance and its mode dependence. The patent's contribution — recognizing the reciprocal relation between mode velocity and injected current as the sizing constraint — is arguably a "newly discovered problem," which can support nonobviousness if the solution was not otherwise suggested. This is the claim's strongest nonobviousness theory.
3. Common ownership. If the applicant relies for motivation on its own DE 10 2015 112 737 / DE 10 2015 122 661, the § 102(b)(2)(C) exception likely defeats that reliance — but that does not save the claim, because the third‑party Oval and Micro Motion disclosures independently motivate f3 excitation.
4. Prosecution history. The file events show a non‑final action (2020‑12‑07) and an applicant response (2021‑03‑09) followed by allowance. The content of the rejection is not in the record I was given, so I cannot determine what the Examiner considered. The fact that the granted claim recites the weakest pc3 threshold (0.2, versus "especially 0.5 / preferably 0.8" in the specification) is consistent with the numeric boundary having been used to secure allowance — which would itself suggest the Examiners' art came close.

---

6. Claim‑by‑claim outlook

---

7. Bottom line and residual uncertainty

Claim 1 is, in my assessment, more likely than not obvious over EP1729099A1 alone or in view of US20110036179A1, and independently over US20020144557A1/US6807866 in view of US20110036179A1 and EP1130367A1, because (a) every structural element is conventional, (b) the f3‑mode drive and node‑response behaviour are expressly disclosed by Oval and Drahm, (c) the third‑party Micro Motion reference supplies an non‑commonly‑owned motivation to operate in higher bending modes, and (d) the recitation reduces to the well‑known impedance‑matching condition with a threshold (pc3 = 0.2 ⇒ Rg3/RΩ ≈ 0.056–17.9) broad enough to read on the prior art's own recommended exciter placement.

The two facts that would flip this conclusion are: (1) credible measurement or finite‑element evidence that the prior‑art placements (Oval's central antinode; the conventional peak placement) actually generate Rg3/RΩ > ~18, i.e., pc3 < 0.2, in which case the positioning limitation is genuinely discriminating and the teaching‑away argument strengthens; and (2) evidence that the "mutual induction reactance as the binding design constraint" insight was not within the ordinary skill set at the 2016 critical date (this would be unusual given that the derivation reduces to Faraday's law plus the maximum‑power‑transfer theorem).

Things I could not verify and am not asserting: the substance of the 2020‑12‑07 Office Action and the applicant's 2021‑03‑09 response (the file‑wrapper text is not in the material provided); whether pc3 for Oval's specific geometry exceeds or falls below 0.2; and the resolution of the PCT filing‑date discrepancy flagged in the earlier section (it does not affect the § 103 critical date of 2016‑05‑19).