UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`14/558,648
`
`12/02/2014
`
`Jim Funk
`
`3634.0160003
`
`6825
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`CHIU~ KATRIEL Y
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2152
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/16/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`e-offiee @ sternekessler. com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0,7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/558,648
`Examiner
`KATRIELYCHIU
`
`Applicant(s)
`Funk et al.
`Art Unit
`2152
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`No
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/10/2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—2,4—5,7—10,12—16,18—19 and 21—23 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—2,4—5,7—10,12—16,18—19 and 21—23 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:J Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190430
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 2
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`2.
`
`The amendment filed January 10, 2019 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-19
`
`and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed January 10, 2019, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 9-10,
`
`12, 14, 18-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that the combination of the prior art references of Cross et
`
`al., Crosa et al., Cisler et al. and Danninger fails to teach the claim limitations, the Examiner respectfully
`
`disagrees.
`
`The Applicant makes specific arguments to the claim limitation which is recited as “receiving a
`
`most recent search result on at least a portion of the data that has been updated for a more recent
`
`date/time, for a first one of the previously saved searches”, with emphasis on the underlined portions.
`
`However, the Examiner believes that the citation to the prior art of Cisler et al. correctly teaches this
`
`limitation. To further clarify, Cisler et al. provides snapshots of search results as shown in paragraph
`
`[0082] and also in Fig. 7, which includes the current search results using the current search term.
`
`Additionally, Cisler et al. provides the snapshots of previous search results using the search term, which
`
`can be seen in the following citations above. As such, the requirements of this limitation is satisfied.
`
`The Applicant further makes specific arguments to the claim limitation which is recited as
`
`“updating the display of the plurality of search results, wherein the updated display includes the most
`
`recent search result for the more recent date/time for the first one of the saved searches, displayed
`
`concurrently with the first set and the second set of search results that were previously displayed”, with
`
`emphasis on the underlined portions. Again, the Examiner believes that the citation to the prior art of
`
`Cisler et al. correctly teaches this limitation. For the same reasons above, paragraph [0082] and Fig. 7 of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 3
`
`Cisler et al. provides snapshots, showing both the current and previous set of search results, displayed
`
`concurrently in a timeline format with timestamps to indicate the date in which the searches were
`
`performed. As such, the requirements of this limitation is satisfied.
`
`The Applicant also makes an argument with regards to Danninger that the combination of the
`
`prior art references would destroy the purpose of Danninger, which is to display only new search results
`
`and omit the previous search results. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that this combination
`
`would destroy the purpose of Danninger because the other references are combined to teach a
`
`concurrent display of search results. Combining Danninger would only change the display of the search
`
`being currently performed to show any new results that were not present in previous search results based
`
`on the time and date that the search was performed. More specifically, combining Danninger would only
`
`change the results displayed of that one specific search, but not the other searches in the concurrent
`
`display. This combination would simply provide each search result once in a concurrent display
`
`depending on when the search result was determined to be “new”, meaning that there would be no
`
`repeating results. Additionally, the Examiner cites to the claim limitation which recites “displaying the
`
`plurality of search results for each of the plurality of previously saved searches on data across a plurality
`
`of individual time periods, wherein a first set of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time
`
`period of a first one of the previously saved searches differs from a second set of the displayed search
`
`results corresponding to a second time period of the first one of the previously saved searches”, with
`
`emphasis on the underlined portions. Although the limitation is taught by Cisler et al., the Examiner
`
`would also like to clarify that Danninger teaches this limitation as well because removal of previous
`
`results in a current search would guarantee that a second set of results “differs” from a first set of results.
`
`The claim limitations do not specific to what degree that the set of results differ, so under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, the Examiner believes that the teachings of Danninger would make each
`
`search result set for the same search term completely different. As such, the Examiner believes that all of
`
`the requirements of this claim is satisfied.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 4
`
`Remarks
`
`4.
`
`Applicant’s filing ofthe Claims dated January 10, 2019 introduces new claim 23. However, the
`
`previous set of Claims dated July 3, 2018 also introduced a new claim 23. Both claims recite different
`
`limitations and the previous claim 23 has not been reiterated in the new set of claims or cancelled.
`
`Please correct as necessary.
`
`Additionally, although the claim amendments are non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121, the claims
`
`have been examined as amended to speed up the prosecution process.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to NA 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 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.
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-14, 18-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Cross et al. (US. Patent Application Publication 2009/0119254) in view of Crosa
`
`et al (US. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072432) and Cisler et al. (US. Patent Application
`
`Publication 2008/0033922) and further in view of Danninger (US. Patent Application Publication
`
`2007/0112817).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Cross et al. discloses a method for displaying search results comprising:
`
`requesting an interface including one or more previously saved searches (an interface support a
`
`user entry of search query terms and the user selection of a request to receive a history of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 5
`
`search query terms, Cross et al. [0047]), each of the previously saved searches corresponding to a set
`
`of one or more search terms (sending the previously entered search terms by the user, Cross et al.
`
`[0038]; due to the search terms being sent, it is inherent that they were obtained by accessing a
`
`search history to retrieve those terms);
`
`receiving an updated plurality of search results (search result reporter 114 may also trigger
`
`search history controller 116 to dynamically update the search result for the previous search
`
`query, Cross et al. [0048]) for each of the plurality of previously saved searches (search result links
`
`are generated using previously entered search terms as well as additional search terms from the
`
`user, Cross et al. [0038]) from a remote server (Fig. 2 — server systems, Cross et al. [0055]), wherein
`
`a signal to the remote server to re-run the previously saved searches is triggered based on the request
`
`(same citation above in Cross et al. [0048] where the search result reporter 114 triggers search
`
`history controller 116 to dynamically update the search result for the previous search query; this
`
`is the “trigger” signal used to update the previous search query and although it does not explicitly
`
`say that the previously saved searches are “re-run”, the term “update” means that the previous
`
`search query would have to be performed again to give updated results).
`
`However, Cross et al. fails to disclose that the previously saved searches are performed at
`
`different times and that the previously saved searches are displayed across a plurality of time periods.
`
`Crosa et al. teaches that the method of displaying search results comprises:
`
`wherein each of the search results corresponds to execution of a corresponding one of the
`
`previously saved searches performed at a different time (selecting an automatic update option to
`
`show more recent updates every two minutes, Crosa et al. [0040]); and
`
`displaying the plurality of search results for each of the plurality of previously saved searches on
`
`data across a plurality of individual time periods (Fig. 6 — time selection panel 645, Crosa et al. [0049];
`
`the “view-by” tools in Crosa et al. [0050] can be used based on the settings of Fig. 6 to display the
`
`network update items over a period of time such as last minute, hour, day, week, etc.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross et al. with the feature
`
`taught by Crosa et al. as constantly performing searches at different times will provide the user with the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 6
`
`most accurate and up-to-date search results and displaying search results over a certain time period will
`
`allow the user to filter out search results based on a certain time frame that they choose.
`
`However, Crosa et al. only teaches that the results are cumulative of each other (results within a
`
`week will contain a subset of the results within a day) and therefore, the combination of Cross et al. and
`
`Crosa et al., hereinafter Cross-Crosa, does not teach that the first set of the displayed search results
`
`corresponding to a first time period of a first one of the previously saved searches differs from a second
`
`set of the displayed search results corresponding to a second time period of the first one of the previously
`
`saved searches.
`
`Cisler et al. teaches:
`
`wherein a first set of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time period of a first one
`
`of the previously saved searches (the search component 118 can present results of a search of the
`
`current state of the system 100 within a desktop user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]) differs from a
`
`second set of the displayed search results corresponding to a second time period (results of a search of
`
`one or more historical states with a time machine user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]) of the first one
`
`of the previously saved searches (the search results presented can include one or more items that
`
`were not present in the search result provided for the current contents, Cisler et al. [0062];
`
`elements not present in a search result and present in another shows that the sets differ);
`
`receiving a most recent search result for a more recent date/time, for a first one of the previously
`
`saved searches (the search component 118 can present results of a search of the current state of
`
`the system 100 within a desktop user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]; see also Fig. 7); and
`
`updating the display of the plurality of search results, wherein the updated display includes the
`
`most recent search result for the more recent date/time for the first one of the saved searches, displayed
`
`concurrently with the first set and the second set of search results that were previously displayed (the
`
`timeline 702 includes snapshots representing the results of performing the current search on an
`
`earlier version of system contents that have been backed up, Cisler et al. [0082]; additionally, refer
`
`to Fig. 7 which displays snapshots of the previous search results which may be selected for
`
`display, tCislers the display of the sets is concurrent).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 7
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross-Crosa with the feature
`
`taught by Cisler et al. as multiple search sets including the indication of the date or period of time of the
`
`search helps to identify results that may not have been present in one set, but present in another set, and
`
`the concurrent displays offers a simple historical view of the search results to the user that allows them to
`
`compare search result sets.
`
`However, the combination of Cross-Crosa and Cisler et al., hereinafter Cross-Crosa-Cisler, fails
`
`to teach that the search results received are on at least a portion of the data that has been updated.
`
`Danninger teaches that only the new search results that were not readily available in a previous
`
`search is retrieved and displayed to a user when performing a search using the same term (if the user
`
`has performed the same search before, the CPU accesses the search record for that search in
`
`order to determine the new results, and displays only the new results which were not retrieved in
`
`the previous search, Danninger [0010]; timestamps for stored searches, Danninger [0017] &
`
`[0020]), thus teaching that the search results received are on at least a portion of the data that has been
`
`updated.
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross-Crosa-Cisler with the
`
`feature taught by Danninger as the displaying of only the new/updated search results when performing a
`
`search using a previously saved/used term helps remove the unwanted results that a user had already
`
`seen or viewed the first time around, thus making the display of search results more compact.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cross-Crosa-Cisler and Danninger., hereinafter Cross-
`
`Crosa-Cisler-Danninger, discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further,
`
`Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses that the portion of the search results displayed (display a
`
`portion of search result links, Cross et al. [0039]) for each search is one or more new or most relevant
`
`contents since a previous search date (display can contain the new search result links, Cross et al.
`
`[0038]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding claim 4, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`1 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses that the method comprises:
`
`displaying a plurality of dates to indicate when each of the plurality of previous searches was
`
`performed, wherein each date is displayed adjacent to its respective portion of the search results (search
`
`result reporter may provide a list of selectable report types based on search query terms, dates
`
`and times of previous searches, Cross et al. [0047]).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`1 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger teaches that each portion is displayed in a
`
`timeline format, including both previous search results and current search results (the timeline 702
`
`includes snapshots representing the results of performing the current search on an earlier
`
`version of system contents that have been backed up, Cisler et al. [0082]; additionally, refer to Fig.
`
`7 which displays snapshots of the previous search results which may be selected for display,
`
`tCislers the display of the sets is concurrent).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Cross et al. discloses a non-transitory processor-readable medium (medium,
`
`Cross et al. [0071]) having one or more instructions operational on a client device (client systems,
`
`Cross et al. [0051]), which when executed by a processor (processor, Cross et al. [0068]) causes the
`
`processor to:
`
`request an interface including one or more previously saved searches (an interface support a
`
`user entry of search query terms and the user selection of a request to receive a history of the
`
`search query terms, Cross et al. [0047]), each of the previously saved searches corresponding to a set
`
`of one or more search terms (sending the previously entered search terms by the user, Cross et al.
`
`[0038]; due to the search terms being sent, it is inherent that they were obtained by accessing a
`
`search history to retrieve those terms);
`
`automatically receive an updated plurality of search results (search result reporter 114 may
`
`also trigger search history controller 116 to dynamically update the search result for the previous
`
`search query, Cross et al. [0048]) for each of the plurality of previously saved searches (search result
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 9
`
`links are generated using previously entered search terms as well as additional search terms from
`
`the user, Cross et al. [0038]) from a remote server (Fig. 2 — server systems, Cross et al. [0055]),
`
`wherein a signal to the remote server to re-run the previously saved searches is triggered based on the
`
`request (same citation above in Cross et al. [0048] where the search result reporter 114 triggers
`
`search history controller 116 to dynamically update the search result for the previous search
`
`query; this is the “trigger” signal used to update the previous search query and although it does
`
`not explicitly say that the previously saved searches are “re-run”, the term “update” means that
`
`the previous search query would have to be performed again to give updated results).
`
`However, Cross et al. fails to disclose that the previously saved searches are performed at
`
`different times and that the previously saved searches are displayed across a plurality of time periods.
`
`Crosa et al. teaches that the method of displaying search results comprises:
`
`wherein each of the search results corresponds to execution of a corresponding one of the
`
`previously saved searches performed at a different time (selecting an automatic update option to
`
`show more recent updates every two minutes, Crosa et al. [0040]); and
`
`display the plurality of search results for each of the plurality of previously saved searches on
`
`data across a plurality of individual time periods (Fig. 6 — time selection panel 645, Crosa et al. [0049];
`
`the “view-by” tools in Crosa et al. [0050] can be used based on the settings of Fig. 6 to display the
`
`network update items over a period of time such as last minute, hour, day, week, etc.).
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross et al. with the feature
`
`taught by Crosa et al. as constantly performing searches at different times will provide the user with the
`
`most accurate and up-to-date search results and displaying search results over a certain time period will
`
`allow the user to filter out search results based on a certain time frame that they choose.
`
`However, Crosa et al. only teaches that the results are cumulative of each other (results within a
`
`week will contain a subset of the results within a day) and therefore, Cross-Crosa does not teach that the
`
`first set of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time period of a first one of the previously
`
`saved searches differs from a second set of the displayed search results corresponding to a second time
`
`period of the first one of the previously saved searches.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Cisler et al. teaches:
`
`Page 10
`
`wherein a first set of the displayed search results corresponding to a first time period of a first one
`
`of the previously saved searches (the search component 118 can present results of a search of the
`
`current state of the system 100 within a desktop user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]) differs from a
`
`second set of the displayed search results corresponding to a second time period (results of a search of
`
`one or more historical states with a time machine user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]) of the first one
`
`of the previously saved searches (the search results presented can include one or more items that
`
`were not present in the search result provided for the current contents, Cisler et al. [0062];
`
`elements not present in a search result and present in another shows that the sets differ) and
`
`additionally teaches the functions of:
`
`automatically receive a most recent search result for a more recent date/time for a first one of the
`
`previously saved searches (the search component 118 can present results of a search of the current
`
`state of the system 100 within a desktop user interface, Cisler et al. [0062]); and
`
`update the display of the plurality of search results, wherein the updated display includes the
`
`most recent search result for the more recent date/time for the first one of the saved searches, displayed
`
`concurrently with the first set and the second set of search results that were previously displayed (the
`
`timeline 702 includes snapshots representing the results of performing the current search on an
`
`earlier version of system contents that have been backed up, Cisler et al. [0082]; additionally, refer
`
`to Fig. 7 which displays snapshots of the previous search results which may be selected for
`
`display, tCislers the display of the sets is concurrent).
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross-Crosa with the feature
`
`taught by Cisler et al. as multiple search sets including the indication of the date or period of time of the
`
`search helps to identify results that may not have been present in one set, but present in another set, and
`
`the concurrent displays offers a simple historical view of the search results to the user that allows them to
`
`compare search result sets.
`
`However, Cross-Crosa-Cisler fails to teach that the search results received are on at least a
`
`portion of the data that has been updated.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 11
`
`Danninger teaches that only the new search results that were not readily available in a previous
`
`search is retrieved and displayed to a user when performing a search using the same term (if the user
`
`has performed the same search before, the CPU accesses the search record for that search in
`
`order to determine the new results, and displays only the new results which were not retrieved in
`
`the previous search, Danninger [0010]; timestamps for stored searches, Danninger [0017] &
`
`[0020]), thus teaching that the search results received are on at least a portion of the data that has been
`
`updated.
`
`Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device taught by Cross-Crosa-Cisler with the
`
`feature taught by Danninger as the displaying of only the new/updated search results when performing a
`
`search using a previously saved/used term helps remove the unwanted results that a user had already
`
`seen or viewed the first time around, thus making the display of search results more compact.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`9 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses that the portion of the search
`
`results displayed (display a portion of search result links, Cross et al. [0039]) for each search is one
`
`or more new or most relevant contents since a previous search date (display can contain the new
`
`search result links, Cross et al. [0038]).
`
`Regarding claim 12, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`9 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses that the instructions of the non-
`
`transitory processor-readable medium, when executed by a processor, causes it to:
`
`display one or more dates to indicate when each of the one or more previous searches was
`
`performed, wherein each date is displayed adjacent to its respective portion of the search results (search
`
`result reporter may provide a list of selectable report types based on search query terms, dates
`
`and times of previous searches, Cross et al. [0047]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 13, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`9 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger teaches that each portion is displayed in a
`
`timeline format (the timeline 702 includes snapshots representing the results of performing the
`
`current search on an earlier version of system contents that have been backed up, Cisler et al.
`
`[0082]; additionally, refer to Fig. 7 which displays snapshots of the previous search results which
`
`may be selected for display, tCislers the display of the sets is concurrent).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`9 as outlined above. Further, Cross et al. discloses that the instructions of the non-transitory processor-
`
`readable medium, when executed by a processor, causes it to:
`
`display a search term used by each of the one or more previous searches (previously entered
`
`search terms by the user, Cross et al. [0038]).
`
`Regarding claim 18, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses all the features with respect to claim
`
`1 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger discloses that the displaying comprises:
`
`determining that a first one of the plurality of search results displayed for a first one of the
`
`previously saved searches comprises a first set of search results (Fig. 5 — a display window 504
`
`includes a first portion of the search result links and in response to the search term “sports”, may
`
`return multiple links associated with baseball, Cross et al. [0088]); and
`
`determining that a second one of the plurality of search results displayed for the first one of the
`
`previously saved searches comprises a second set of search results different from the first set of search
`
`results (Fig. 5 — as discussed earlier in Cross et al. [0088], baseball may be the “first” of the search
`
`results; user may select the next option 510 to display the next portion of search result links that
`
`are associated with soccer, Cross et al. [0091]).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Cross et al. discloses a system for displaying search results, comprising:
`
`a display (display interface, Cross et al. [0040]);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 13
`
`a memory (Fig. 3 — memory such as a random access memory (RAM) 314 or read only
`
`memory (ROM) 316, Cross et al. [0069]);
`
`one or more hardware processors (Fig. 3 — processor 312, may include multiple processors,
`
`Cross et al. [0068]), coupled to the display and memory and configured to:
`
`request an interface including one or more previously saved searches (an interface support a
`
`user entry of search query terms and the user selection of a request to receive a history of the
`
`search query terms, Cross et al. [0047]), each of the previously saved searches corresponding to a set
`
`of one or more search terms (sending the previously entered search terms by the user, Cross et al.
`
`[0038]; due to the search terms being sent, it is inherent that they were obtained by accessing a
`
`search history to retrieve those terms);
`