DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 20 May 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”). This action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 11-12 are currently amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Almecija et al., US 2018/0365025 A1, in view of Cottingham et al., US 2009/0300494 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Almecija discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
Detect a type of a user who uses an application. Almecija teaches determining a type of user. Almecija ¶ 32.
Based on the type that has been detected, control whether to display or hide an instruction section for the application when a selection screen for the application is displayed. Almecija teaches adapting a user interface based on the determined type of user. Almecija ¶ 32. The adaption may comprise displaying hints to help the user navigate or otherwise use the user interface. Id. ¶ 64. The adapted user interface may be a screen with selectable user interface elements (e.g., menus). Id. ¶ 46, figs. 14-15.
Almecija alone does not explicitly disclose, but the combination of Almecija with Cottingham renders obvious the instruction section being a link to cause information regarding functionality of the application to be displayed. Almecija teaches displaying hints to help the user use the user interface. Almecija ¶ 64. Almecija does not explicitly disclose the hints comprising a link. However, Cottingham teaches displaying an instruction section comprising a link to additional information regarding the functionality of an application. Cottingham ¶¶ 23-26, 31, figs. 3-4.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Almecija’s process of displaying an instruction section for an application with Cottingham’s process of displaying an instruction section comprising a link. Such a modification would increase utility be allowing a user, if needed, to be readily be presented with additional information without overcrowding the user interface.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to hide the instruction section when the type is a machine administrator. Almecija teaches determining a type of user based on their job title (e.g., technical programmer) or software access permissions. Almecija ¶¶ 52, 88. A machine administrator may be considered a job title and a software access permission level.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to record the number of times that the application has been used by an authenticated user and control whether to display or hide the instruction section for the application based on the number of times that the application has been used. Almecija teaches determining a type of user based on a number of times a user has used an application. Almecija ¶¶ 52, 74.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to hide the instruction section when the number of times that the application has been used is equal to a predetermined value or more. Almecija teaches categorizing a user as advanced when, for example, a user has used an application over 100 times (i.e., 101 or more times). Almecija ¶¶ 52, 74.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to display the instruction section when the number of times that the application has been used is less than the predetermined value. Almecija teaches categorizing a user as a beginner when, for example, a user has used an application less than ten times. Almecija ¶¶ 52, 74.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to display the instruction section for the application for an unauthenticated user. Almecija teaches displaying hints to any type of user (e.g., an unauthenticated user). Almecija ¶¶ 64-66.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Almecija discloses wherein the processor is configured to render an entire display area for the application selectable when the instruction section for the application is hidden. See Almecija figs. 12-13.
Claim 11 is drawn to instructions stored in a medium for performing the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Claim 12 is drawn to a method for performing the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as indicated in the above rejection of the corresponding claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the novelty of the pending claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection to teach the newly amended limitations. Applicant is referred to the above detailed rejections for further explanation.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Irvine, US 2018/0060093 A1, discloses a first run experience user interface comprising links to tutorials.
Eisen et al., US 4,964,077 A, discloses automatically adjusting help information based on various metrics concerning a user’s history of using an application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights