DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on January 22, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-13 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-13 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated October 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is persuasive. Therefore, the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues, in pages 14-15 of the Remarks, “Mani merely teaches that a home appliance, which another user is scheduled to use immediately after a default user who used the home appliance before, may still maintain a function restriction state based on an attribute of the default user (see, e.g., Mani 0057). In other words, Mani merely teaches an initial setting of the home appliance immediately before the use of the home appliance by the other user, and fails to teach or suggest the claim limitations of acquiring an attribute of a second user different from the first user; and determining a restriction item of the home appliance that the first user is scheduled to use immediately after with reference to a rule based on the attribute of the second user”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mani teaches a comprehensive method to provide different user interface configurations for different classes of users based on their cognitive abilities as outlined in Fig. 4. Applicant’s interpretation paragraph 0057 is improper. Paragraph 0057, the last sentence, discloses that when the home appliance is under use of a user, detecting presence of another user triggers the performance of the process of Fig. 4 to generate a user interface configuration specific to the another user. Therefore, the process of Fig. 4 is performed with respect to the another user who is about to use the home appliance that is scheduled to or under use of the first user.
Applciant argues, in page 15 of the Remarks, “Thus, it is clear that Mani fails to teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious the above- noted limitations recited in amended independent claim 1 of acquiring, by the computer, user information about the second user, the user information including a level of cognitive faculty of the second user; and determining, by the computer, a restriction item to a function of the device or the equipment provided in the space under restriction with reference to a rule that restricts the function of the device or the equipment according to the level of cognitive faculty of the second user.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Important to note, first user of Fig. 4 corresponds to the another user i.e. claimed second user. Paragraph 0055 discloses capturing images of the user. Paragraph 0056 discloses a parameter like age, gender, identity etc. (level of cognitive faculty) is determined from the captured image. Paragraph 0057 discloses determining restricted function based on the parameter.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mani et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200110532 A1), hereinafter, Mani.
Regarding claim 1:
Mani teaches:
A function restriction method, by a computer, comprising:
specifying, by a computer, for an establishment provided with a device or equipment, a first user and a second user who is different from the first user (paragraph 0024 discloses a smart home environment (establishment) with one or more smart home appliances 124 (device or equipment) as stated “In some embodiments, the smart home environment 122 includes one or more smart home appliances 124.”. Paragraph 0029 discloses specifying each user of the plurality of users in the database as stated “The database and models 116 include various user data for each user and/or household of users, such as individual user's account data (e.g., images, age, gender, characteristics, etc.), and user interface configuration preferences and restrictions, etc.”. Paragraph 0057 discloses first user (first user) and another user (second user));
specifying, by the computer, one of a plurality of spaces of the establishment that the first user is currently using or scheduled to use as a space under restriction (paragraphs 0024 and 0025 discloses the house is divided into different areas (plurality of spaces). Paragraph 0057 discloses the first user is using the appliance by keeping the user interface configuration for that user and triggering another user inface configuration by detecting presence of the another user as stated “In some embodiments, the computing system keeps the user interface configuration after the first user has left the vicinity of the first home appliance, until the computing system detects presence of another user in the vicinity of the first home appliance with characteristics for trigging a different user interface configuration.”. Therefore, the steps of Fig. 4 is performed with respect to the another user who is about to use the appliance that is scheduled to or under use of the first user.);
acquiring, by the computer, user information about the second user, the user information including a level of cognitive faculty of the second user (important to note, first user of Fig. 4 corresponds to the another user i.e. claimed second user. Paragraph 0055 discloses capturing (acquiring) images of the user. Paragraph 0056 discloses a parameter like age, gender, identity etc. (level of cognitive faculty) is determined from the captured image as stated “In accordance with the one or more characteristics of the facial image (e.g., features extracted by a feature extraction neural network (e.g., a convolution neural network) and region proposal network)) of the first user that are determined from the one or more images captured by the one or more cameras, the computing system determines (406) at least a first parameter (e.g., an age, gender, identity, an intentionally blocked facial feature (e.g., hand covering mouth, hand covering ear, hand covering forehead, etc.)) that is configured to trigger a first change in a current control user interface configuration for the first home appliance”);
determining, by the computer, a restriction item to a function of the device or the equipment provided in the space under restriction with reference to a rule that restricts the function of the device or the equipment according to the level of cognitive faculty of the second user (paragraph 0057 discloses determining restricted function based on the parameter as stated “The computing system activates (408) a first control user interface configuration corresponding to the first parameter for the first home appliance (e.g., the first control user interface configuration has a modified input mode, modified user interface layout, a different set of permitted functions, a different feedback mode, different accessibility enhancement, and/or different access restrictions from the current control user interface configuration used immediately before the presence of the first user was detected) while the presence of the first user continues to be detected within the first threshold range of the first home appliance.” . Paragraph 0064 discloses restricting certain functions as stated “A teenager may need a first type of access control that restricts risky or irresponsible uses of various home appliances. Grade school children may need enhanced guidance during usage of certain home appliances. A toddler may need restriction to only a small set of safe functions of the home appliances and also accessibility enhancement for those allowed functions. A baby is prevented to trigger any action even if the user interface is provided for pure entertainment purposes to the baby (e.g., baby may enjoy playing with a control panel and hear the beeps and see the colored text light up on control panel).”); and
outputting, by the computer, information indicative of the restriction item (paragraph 0066 discloses graphical user interface show the restricted functions.).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mani further teaches:
wherein the user information includes a first class and a second class into which the first user or second user is classified (paragraph 0064 discloses different classes of users like adult, teenager etc.);
users existing in the establishment are detected (paragraph 0036 discloses detention of user presence);
user information about the first user and the user information about the second information are acquired (paragraph 0057 user information of the first user and the another user are acquired for generating respective user interface configuration);
any user designated by the user information indicative of the first class is specified as the first user (paragraph 0064 explains any user determined to be adult is specified as an adult user).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mani further teaches:
wherein the user information includes a first class and a second class into which each of the first user or the second user is classified (paragraph 0064 discloses different classes of users like adult, teenager etc.);
user information about the first user and the user information about the second user are acquired (paragraph 0057 user information of the first user and the another user are acquired for generating respective user interface configuration), and
any user designated by the user information indicative of the first class is specified as the first user (paragraph 0064 explains any user determined to be adult is specified as an adult user).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Mani further teaches receiving an input of the first class (paragraph 0067 discloses user class based on wearing glasses or not).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mani further teaches wherein the first user is specified based on an input instruction designating the first user (paragraph 0067 discloses user is specified based on whether wearing glass or not).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Mani further teaches wherein any user designated by user information indicative of the second class is specified as the second user (paragraph 0064 explains any user determined to be teenager is specified as an teenager user).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mani further teaches wherein users existing in the plurality of spaces are detected; and the space under restriction is specified based on a result of the user detection (paragraph 0008 applying restrictions on usage of a refrigerator by a child when an adult is not nearby ).
Regarding claim 10:
Mani teaches:
A function restriction method, by a computer, comprising:
specifying, by a computer, for an establishment provided with a device or equipment, a first user and a second user who is different from the first user (paragraph 0024 discloses a smart home environment (establishment) with one or more smart home appliances 124 (device or equipment) as stated “In some embodiments, the smart home environment 122 includes one or more smart home appliances 124.”. Paragraph 0029 discloses specifying each user of the plurality of users in the database as stated “The database and models 116 include various user data for each user and/or household of users, such as individual user's account data (e.g., images, age, gender, characteristics, etc.), and user interface configuration preferences and restrictions, etc.”. Paragraph 0057 discloses first user (first user) and another user (second user));
specifying, by the computer, one of a plurality of spaces of the establishment that the first user is currently using or scheduled to use as a space under restriction (paragraphs 0024 and 0025 discloses the house is divided into different areas (plurality of spaces). Paragraph 0057 discloses the first user is using the appliance by keeping the user interface configuration for that user and triggering another user inface configuration by detecting presence of the another user as stated “In some embodiments, the computing system keeps the user interface configuration after the first user has left the vicinity of the first home appliance, until the computing system detects presence of another user in the vicinity of the first home appliance with characteristics for trigging a different user interface configuration.”. Therefore, the steps of Fig. 4 is performed with respect to the another user who is about to use the appliance that is scheduled to or under use of the first user.);
acquiring, by the computer, user information about the second user, the user information including a current level of cognitive faculty of the second user (important to note, first user of Fig. 4 corresponds to the another user i.e. claimed second user. Paragraph 0055 discloses capturing (acquiring) images of the user. Paragraph 0056 discloses a parameter like age, gender, identity etc. (level of cognitive faculty) is determined from the captured image as stated “In accordance with the one or more characteristics of the facial image (e.g., features extracted by a feature extraction neural network (e.g., a convolution neural network) and region proposal network)) of the first user that are determined from the one or more images captured by the one or more cameras, the computing system determines (406) at least a first parameter (e.g., an age, gender, identity, an intentionally blocked facial feature (e.g., hand covering mouth, hand covering ear, hand covering forehead, etc.)) that is configured to trigger a first change in a current control user interface configuration for the first home appliance”);
determining, by the computer, a restriction item to a function of the device or the equipment provided in the space under restriction with reference to a rule that restricts the function of the device or the equipment according to current level of the cognitive faculty of the second user (paragraph 0057 discloses determining restricted function based on the parameter as stated “The computing system activates (408) a first control user interface configuration corresponding to the first parameter for the first home appliance (e.g., the first control user interface configuration has a modified input mode, modified user interface layout, a different set of permitted functions, a different feedback mode, different accessibility enhancement, and/or different access restrictions from the current control user interface configuration used immediately before the presence of the first user was detected) while the presence of the first user continues to be detected within the first threshold range of the first home appliance.” . Paragraph 0064 discloses restricting certain functions as stated “A teenager may need a first type of access control that restricts risky or irresponsible uses of various home appliances. Grade school children may need enhanced guidance during usage of certain home appliances. A toddler may need restriction to only a small set of safe functions of the home appliances and also accessibility enhancement for those allowed functions. A baby is prevented to trigger any action even if the user interface is provided for pure entertainment purposes to the baby (e.g., baby may enjoy playing with a control panel and hear the beeps and see the colored text light up on control panel).”); and
outputting, by the computer, information indicative of the restriction item (paragraph 0066 discloses graphical user interface show the restricted functions);
acquiring, by the computer, action information about an action of the second user (paragraph 0067 discloses acquiring information that the user is wearing a glass (action));
judging, by the computer, based on the action information whether the second user has changed to a different level of cognitive faculty than the current level of cognitive faculty (paragraph 0067 discloses judging elevation of cognitive ability due to wearing a glass); and
updating, by the computer, when the second user is judged to have changed to the different level of cognitive faculty, the current level of cognitive faculty included in the user information about the second user to the different level of cognitive faculty (paragraph 0067 discloses judging the user is wearing a glass and judging elevation of cognitive ability and thereby adjusting the user interface according to the elevated cognitive ability of the user as stated “So, in some embodiments, when the computing system detects that the first user is wearing glasses over his/her eyes based on the image analysis, the computing system alters the usual user interface configuration associated with the first user to remove the visual accessibility enhancement features and displays a graphical user interface with regular layout (e.g., regular font size and contrast, and optionally with more options included in the user interface) and feedback mechanisms (voice-over is turned off).” . Also see paragraph 0050 discussing determine change of cognitive ability based on the user action and adjusting the user interface accordingly ).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Mani further teaches wherein the action information includes at least one of an attribute of the user, a location of the user, a voice of the user , or an image of the user (paragraph 0067 discloses the action information wearing a glass).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards a function restriction apparatus performing the function restriction method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform the function restriction method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani in view of Zhang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20160328894 A1), hereinafter, Zhang.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Mani does not teach wherein schedule information indicative of a use schedule of the plurality of spaces is acquired; and the space under restriction is specified based on the schedule information.
Zhang teaches wherein schedule information indicative of a use schedule of the plurality of spaces is acquired; and the space under restriction is specified based on the schedule information (paragraph 87 discloses restricting access to a location of a facility based on the schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mani to incorporate the teaching of Zhang about restricting access to a location of a facility based on the schedule. One would be motivated to that to restrict unauthorize access of the location (see the Abstract of Zhang).
Conclusion
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 KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
May 13, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights