DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Amendments/Request for reconsideration filed on 03/03/2026 after Non-Final filed 12/12/16/2025. The application contains claims 1-3, 5-18, all examined and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
It is acknowledged that claims 1, 8-11, 17-18 were amended. Claim 4 was cancelled.
In view of the amendments, the claim objection(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, and 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, 17 and 18: Applicant argues that Fukuda only discloses fixed-length packets with CRC and does not disclose assigning an error detection code in a “variable data length unit corresponding to content of the biological data”. The argument is not persuasive. Fukuda discloses pulse wave detection packets including calculated CRC error detection code involving detected biological events, including ECG waveform and pulse wave timing information (See Fukuda para. [0092. 0162-0163]). Under BRI, the claimed “variable data length unit corresponding to content of the biological data, wherein the biological data includes sensing data obtained by the sensor a sensing data is obtained” can reasonably be interpreted as biological data units corresponding to biological events and associated timing information. As such, Fukuda’s pulse wave detection packet corresponds to detected pulse wave biological content, ECG waveform, and associated timing information reasonable teaches the limitation under BRI. Also, the claim broadly recites assigning a error detection code calculated based on biological data, Fukuda’s CRC calculation on biological data packets stratifies the limitation. Furthermore, Fukuda’s reception window and pulse-wave timing events vary according to the detected biological ECG and pulse wave timing information, see para. 0094. Therefore, the associated biological data unit is not limited to a rigid fixed-time segmentation as alleged by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that Fukuda does not disclose a boundary within biological data between sensing data and time information is not persuasive. Under BRI, the claimed information of time when the sensing data is obtained” reasonably read on Fukuda’s timing information associated with pulse wave detection and ECG event occurrences, (see para. 0092, 0094. 0162-0163]). Further Fukuda defines biologically meaningful timing windows based on detected waveform events, including resorption windows determined from R-wave timing and pulse-wave occurrence timing, see para. 0094. Such timing-windows boundaries reasonably correspond to claimed “boundary between the sensing data and the information of the time” under BRI.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “complete cardiac cycle”, “one beat”, “adjacent units remain usable”, “entropy/H(x)”, “minimal average length approaching entropy”, “error correction”, “content-adaptive segmentation”, “meaningful data unit”, “semantic segmentation”, “preserving neighboring beats/packet”, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that Fukuda uses the same fixed packet structure for transmission and processing. The argument is not persuasive. Fukuda discloses a separate transmission unit “HBS transmission unit” in paragraph [0162], and the variable data length unit is pulse wave detection packet with the generated CRC, while the HBS transmission unit transmits the pulse wave detection packet, they are different from each other. The claims does not recite any different/separate
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that Fukuda does not align units with natural biological cycles. The argument is not persuasive. Fukuda describes biological cycles including ECG waveforms and pulse waves, where r-wave timing and pulse wave transit times are align with a cycle of the biological data (ECG waveforms and pulse waves), see para. [0092, 0094].
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Fukuda’s Tp=T2-T1 is static and not dynamically adjusted according to measurement state. The argument is not persuasive. Fukuda discloses dynamically adjusted reception window based on prior-wave transit measurement and ECG waveforms, see para. [0094]. Under BRI, dynamically determining reception window and biological event timing reasonably corresponds to different measurement stages associated with the biological sensing data.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that Fukuda lacks separation of two processors with non-volatile memory, enabling isolated, sequential write/read operations. The argument is not persuasive. Fukuda describe electrocardiogram sensor and the pulse wave sensor as “control unit includes a first processor that performs the measurement” paragraph 0057-0058; paragraph [0118] “communication unit 130, for example, a wireless communication method, such as Bluetooth.RTM” that transmits the “information relating to the pulse wave transit time to the mobile terminal 690” as second processor that performs wireless communication with the information terminal. Examiner respectfully submits the control unit, communication units are described with distinct functionalities which would reasonably correspond to a first processor associated with the biological measurement operation (sensors) and a second processor associated with comminution operations. Furthermore regarding communication units, non-volatile memory buffers for temporarily storing received biological data prior to retransmission to a mobile terminal is conventional.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues that variable unit differ from inter-processor transfer unit, reinforcing the independent of content-based segmentation from hardware transfer mechanism. The argument is not persuasive. Claims does not describe what the differences are. Under BRI, Fukuda’s separate sensing, reception, communication, packet processing operations reasonably corresponds to differing functional units associated with the inter-component transfers)
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Fukuda apples CRC uniformly at packet level rather than processor-specific assignment. The argument is not persuasive. The claims does not require specialized adaptive processor architecture or a particular CRC generation engine. As such, Fukuda’s processing system generates and evaluates CRC codes associated with pulse-wave detection packets, see para. 0162-063. Under BRI, the processing circuitry performing packet generation and transmission satisfies the claimed processor functionality.
Regarding claim 14, the argument is not persuasive. Under BRI, “not directly accessible” reasonably encompasses an arrangement in which the first processor does not directly read/wrote the storage medium but instead accessed eth stored biological information through another functional unit, processor, controller, or communication path. Fukuda discloses biological information being stored in a storage medium of the mobile terminal and transmitted to a server. Fukuda’s measurement sensor obtains biological information and communicates it externally, while the mobile terminal is not directly part of the measuring process’s local memory space, therefore under BRI, Fukuda teaches memory that is not directly accessibly from the measurement-side processor, but is accessible through the communication unit.
Regarding claim 15, the argument is not persuasive. Fukuda discloses determining blood pressure information from pulse wave transit times derived form ECG and pulse-wave timing information. Fukuda’s system calculates pulse wave transit time using T1 and T2 and handles biological information including ECG waveform, pulse wave, and calculated blood pressure information. Therefore, Fukuda teaches outputting biological measurement information, including blood pressure related information, based on sensed pulse/ECG data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14-16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda et al. (US 20140155767 A1).
As per claim 1, Fukuda discloses:
a measurement device comprising: a control unit that performs measurement based on biological data obtained by a sensor and wireless communication with an information terminal, at least by (paragraph [0120] which describes a control unit 150 that “performs processing for calculating the pulse wave transit time of the measurement (e.g. “performs measurement”) subject based on electrocardiogram information and the received pulse wave information (e.g. “biological data”)”, and paragraph [0056] describes “electrocardiogram sensor… pulse wave sensor" paragraph [0065] further describes that the wireless communication)
wherein the control unit assigns an error detection code calculated based on the biological data wherein the biological data includes sensing data obtained by the sensor and information of time when the sensing data is obtained, at least by (paragraph [0092. 0162-0163] where Fukuda’s pulse wave detection packet corresponds to detected pulse wave biological content, ECG waveform (e.g. biological data) and associated timing information within the waveforms which are information of time when the sensing data is obtained.)
the variable data length unit is a unit based on a boundary between the sensing data and the information of the time, at least by (paragraph [0092, 0094. 0162-0163] Fukuda defines biologically meaningful timing windows based on detected waveform events, including timing windows determined from R-wave timing and pulse-wave occurrence timing, see para. 0094. Such timing-windows boundaries reasonably correspond to claimed “boundary between the sensing data and the information of the time” under BRI.)
in a variable data length unit corresponding to content of the biological data to the biological data obtained by sensing by the sensor, at least by (paragraph [0162] “determines whether the pulse wave detection packet 710 was properly received (step S123). Whether the pulse wave detection packet 710 was properly received can be determined based on, for example, error detection by the error detection code (CRC) 715 of the pulse wave detection packet 710, or based on gaps in the sequence number (SNO) 714.”, the variable length unit is further discloses by paragraph [0092] which describes “calculates a pulse wave transit time Tp from the relationship Tp=T2-T1 by utilizing a time T2 at which the pulse wave detection packet 710 transmitted from the pulse wave information measurement apparatus is received.” As described by instant specification paragraph [0072] “variable data length unit may be a data length unit with an error detection code”)
and transmits, to the information terminal, the biological data with the error detection code assigned, at least by (paragraph [0092] further describes transmitting a pulse wave detection packet with error detection code).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the variable data length unit is different from a transmission unit of the biological data to the information terminal, at least by (paragraph [0162] describes a “HBC transmission unit 220” that transmits the “pulse wave detection packet 710” (e.g. “transmission unit of the biological data to the information terminal” and the variable length unit described by instant specification paragraph [0072] “ variable data length unit may be a data length unit with an error detection code”) which is equivalent to paragraph [0092] Tp=T2-T1 pulse wave detection packet 710 transmitted from the pulse wave information measurement apparatus is received and paragraph [0162] which describes the error detection by the error detection code (CRC) 715 of the pulse wave detection packet 710)
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the biological data has cyclicity, and the variable data length unit is a unit corresponding to a cycle of the biological data, at least by (paragraph [0162] “error detection by the error detection code (CRC) 715 of the pulse wave detection packet 710”, where the “wave” describes “cyclicity”)
As per claim 4, canceled.
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the variable data length unit is a unit based on a stage of the measurement, at least by (paragraph [0044 and 0092] which is associated with a stage of measurement of when the pulse what measured, “the time corresponding to a characteristic feature (first feature) of the periodic waveform of the electrocardiogram waveform A is T1, and the time corresponding to a characteristic feature (second feature) of the periodic waveform of the pulse wave B that appears after time T1 is T2, then the pulse wave transit time is defined as T2-T1.”)
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the control unit includes a first processor that performs the measurement, a second processor that performs wireless communication with the information terminal, and a nonvolatile memory connected to the second processor, the first processor sequentially transmits, to the second processor, the biological data obtained during sensing by the sensor and writes the biological data into the nonvolatile memory, and the second processor transmits, to the information terminal, the biological data written in the nonvolatile memory, at least by (Fig. 3, paragraph 0057-0058, which described electrocardiogram sensor and the pulse wave sensor as “control unit includes a first processor that performs the measurement”; paragraph [0118] “communication unit 130, for example, a wireless communication method, such as Bluetooth.RTM” that transmits the “information relating to the pulse wave transit time to the mobile terminal 690” as second processor that performs wireless communication with the information terminal; paragraph [0098-0100] describes sequentially transmitting a pulse wave detection packet to an mobile terminal/external device, where the mobile terminal/external device is known to have nonvolatile memory for storing received data (paragraph [0068]))
As per claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the variable data length unit is different from a transfer unit of the biological data from the first processor to the second processor, at least by (paragraph [0162] describes a “HBC transmission unit 220” that transmits the “pulse wave detection packet 710” (e.g. “transmission unit of the biological data to the information terminal” and the variable length unit described by instant specification paragraph [0072] “ variable data length unit may be a data length unit with an error detection code”) which is equivalent to paragraph [0092] Tp=T2-T1 pulse wave detection packet 710 transmitted from the pulse wave information measurement apparatus is received and paragraph [0162] which describes the error detection by the error detection code (CRC) 715 of the pulse wave detection packet 710)
As per claim 8, claim 6 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the error detection code is assigned to the biological data by either the first or second processor, where in a first embodiment, the first processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data and in a second embodiment, the second processor assign the error detection code to the biological data, at least by (paragraph [0092] where the error code is assigned by the electrocardiogram information measurement apparatus (e.g. first processor), the claimed first processor/second processor is merely non function claim language, as any number of processors can be used assign the EDC to the biological data, the claims doesn’t further describe different functions or results between the first and second processor.
As per claim 14, claim 6 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the nonvolatile memory is inaccessible from the first processor, at least by (Fig. 3, paragraph 0057-0058, which described electrocardiogram sensor and the pulse wave sensor as “control unit includes a first processor that performs the measurement”; paragraph [0118] “communication unit 130, for example, a wireless communication method, such as Bluetooth.RTM” that transmits the “information relating to the pulse wave transit time to the mobile terminal 690” where the mobile terminal/external device is known to have nonvolatile memory for storing received data, paragraph [0068]; and is only accessible via the mobile terminal/external device)
As per claim 15, claim 1 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the biological data is pulse wave data, at least by (paragraph [0040] “an electrocardiogram waveform measured at the measurement subject's chest is used as the first waveform and a pulse wave measured at a finger of the measurement subject's hand is used as the second waveform”)
As per claim 16, claim 15 is incorporated and Fukuda further describes:
wherein the control unit outputs a blood pressure measurement result based on the pulse wave data, at least by (paragraph [0128] “the blood pressure value of the measurement subject is calculated by that external device based on the pulse wave transit time”)
Claims 17 and 18 recite equivalent claim limitation(s) as claim 1 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method and recording medium, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US 20140155767 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20080242956 A1).
As per claim 9, claim 8 is incorporated and Fukuda fails to describe:
wherein the first processor transmits information indicating the variable data length unit to the second processor based on content of the biological data, and the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data based on information indicating the variable data length unit.
However, Suzuki teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0077-0082] describes, the first processor as control unit controlling the pulse sensor to provide pulse-wave data that includes variable data length unit related to maximum and minimum values out of a series of the pulse-wave data, and an analyzing unit (e.g. second processor) that obtains the the data as samples the maximum and minimum values out of a series of the sampled pulse-wave data and calculates and “sets the pulse-interval data as an error data of the code G” (e.g. “the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data based on information indicating the variable data length unit”)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda with Suzuki to evaluate “the accuracy of the measured pulse-interval data can be evaluated, so that the biological information can be monitored with high accuracy and to downsize the sensor and ensure the measuring accuracy”)
As per claim 10, claim 8 is incorporated and Fukuda fails to describe:
wherein the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data to be written into the nonvolatile memory.
However, Suzuki teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0077-0082] describes, an analyzing unit (e.g. second processor) that obtains the data as samples the maximum and minimum values out of a series of the sampled pulse-wave data and calculates and “sets the pulse-interval data as an error data of the code G” (e.g. “the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data based on information indicating the variable data length unit”)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda with Suzuki to evaluate “the accuracy of the measured pulse-interval data can be evaluated, so that the biological information can be monitored with high accuracy and to downsize the sensor and ensure the measuring accuracy”)
As per claim 11, claim 8 is incorporated and Fukuda fails to describe:
wherein the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data read from the nonvolatile memory and transmitted to the information terminal,
However, Suzuki teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0008] describes, “after the sensor stores raw data of the pulse wave, the raw data stored in the sensor is transferred to a Personal Computer (PC) for analysis”(e.g. biological data read from the nonvolatile memory and transmitted to the information terminal) paragraph [0077-0082] an analyzing unit (e.g. second processor) that obtains the data as samples the maximum and minimum values out of a series of the sampled pulse-wave data and calculates and “sets the pulse-interval data as an error data of the code G” (e.g. “the second processor assigns the error detection code to the biological data based on information indicating the variable data length unit”)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda with Suzuki to evaluate “the accuracy of the measured pulse-interval data can be evaluated, so that the biological information can be monitored with high accuracy and to downsize the sensor and ensure the measuring accuracy”)
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US 20140155767 A1) in view of Motwani et al. (US 20150143185 A1).
As per claim 12, claim 6 is incorporated and Fukuda fails to describe:
wherein the first processor specifies an address of a write destination in the nonvolatile memory and causes the second processor to write the biological data into the nonvolatile memory, and specifies an address of a read source in the nonvolatile memory and causes the second processor to read the biological data from the nonvolatile memory and transmit the biological data to the information terminal.
However, Motwani teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0056-0059] describes identifying the physical address of nonvolatile memory and writing error correction information to the address, and paragraph [0062] describes reading the error correction information from the physical address of nonvolatile memory)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda which describes storing biological data with error code with Motwani which describes storing and reading error correction information from a physical address of nonvolatile memory to be able to retrieve and verify accuracy of each segment of data read from the memory device (Motwani, paragraph [0063]).
As per claim 13, claim 12 is incorporated and Fukuda fails to describe:
wherein the nonvolatile memory has an area allocated for the biological data, and the address of the write destination and the address of the read source are addresses in the area.
However, Motwani teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0056-0059] describes identifying the physical address of nonvolatile memory and writing particular error correction mode information to a specific address location, and paragraph [0062] describes reading the error correction information from the physical address of nonvolatile memory)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fukuda which describes storing biological data with error code with Motwani which describes storing and reading error correction information from a physical address of nonvolatile memory to be able to retrieve and verify accuracy of each segment of data read from the memory device (Motwani, paragraph [0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PAN et al. (CN 104159108 B): Abstract where adaptive partition describes the variable data length unit is a unit based on a boundary between the sensing data and the information of the time,
Ericksen et al. (US 6128528 A): Abstract, col. 19 lines 24-30.
Ayers et al. (US 20080132770 A1): Abstract, paragraph [0029-0032].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 05/22/2026
Prosecution Insights