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
`
`01/ 1 0/2020
`
`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)
`
`

`

`017/09 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 07/02/2019.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1—2,4—5,7,9—10,12—16,18—19 and 21—24 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss) _ is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s)12,4—5, 7 ,9— 10, 12— 16, 18— 19 and 212—4 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. 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)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[] accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`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)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)l:i None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D 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) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] 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 20200103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`2.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
`
`submission filed on July 2, 2019 has been entered.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`3.
`
`The amendment filed July 2, 2019 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-16, 18-19 and
`
`21-24 remain pending in the application. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claim 24 is new.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2019, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-
`
`14, 18-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), have been fully considered but are moot because the
`
`arguments do not apply to the current reference(s) used in the rejection.
`
`Additionally, the Applicant makes an argument with regards to the combination of the prior art
`
`references of Cross et a|., Crosa et a|., Cisler et al. and Danninger and that they teach limiting features
`
`compared to the claimed invention. Specifically, with regards to claim 1, the Applicant highlights the
`
`limitation of “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
`
`displaye
`
`with emphasis on the underlined portions. The Applicant then goes on to provide an example
`
`by stating that a first set of search results may have programs A, B, and C while a second set of search
`
`results may have programs B, C, and D. These two sets would then be displayed concurrently with no
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 3
`
`changes to either result sets. However, the teachings in Danniger paragraph [0010] would remove
`
`programs B and C, leaving only D as a display for the second set of search results, therefore destroying
`
`the purpose of the claimed invention. Although the addition of Danniger would destroy the specific
`
`example provided by the Applicant, the Examiner points to a previous limitation in claim 1 that reads
`
`“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. The claim language requires the first set of
`
`search results and the second set of search results to have a different set of results, which the Examiner
`
`believes Danniger does accomplish. Nowhere in the claims does it require for either of the two set of
`
`search results to have at least an overlap in programs, which the Applicant uses as an example. For
`
`instance, if a first set of search results contains programs A, B and C, and a second set of search results
`
`contains programs B, C, and D, they are obviously different. Likewise, a first set of search results
`
`containing programs A, B, and C, and a second set of search results containing program D would also
`
`yield two different result sets. The claim limitations do not specify to what degree the set of results differ.
`
`Would there be at least one program that is in both sets or would there be no overlap at all? Therefore,
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner believes that the teachings of Danninger
`
`fulfills the purpose of making each search result set for the same search term different. As such, the
`
`Examiner believes that all of the requirements of this claim is satisfied.
`
`Remarks
`
`5.
`
`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. The
`
`issue with claim 23 from the Claims dated July 3, 2018 has not been thoroughly addressed. Please
`
`correct as necessary.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 4
`
`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 § 1 12
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
`pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 1, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`With regards to claim 1, one ofthe limitation 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. The term “different” in claim 1
`
`is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term
`
`“different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the
`
`requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
`
`invention.
`
`In other words, using the term “different” in the scope ofthe claims would not allow a person to
`
`gauge the degree of difference between two objects or sets of objects in which the claim is referring to.
`
`For example, if a first set of objects contains items A, B and C, and a second set of objects contains items
`
`B, C, and D, they are obviously different. Likewise, a first set of objects containing items A, B, and C, and
`
`a second set of objects containing item D would also yield two different result sets. To what degree do
`
`the claims require both sets to be different? Do either sets need to at least contain one item that overlaps
`
`or can all the items be uniquely distinguishable from each other?
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 5
`
`Claims 9 and 19 recite the same limitation as seen in claim 1 above and is thus rejected for being
`
`indefinite for the same reasons above.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`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-AlA 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.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under pre-AlA 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), Cisler et al. (US. Patent Application Publication
`
`2008/0033922) and Danninger (US. Patent Application Publication 2007/0112817) and further in view of
`
`White et al. (US. Patent Application Publication 2013/0133007).
`
`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
`
`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);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 6
`
`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 from a remote server
`
`(search result links are generated using previously entered search terms as well as additional
`
`search terms from the user, Cross et al. [0038]; Cross et al. [0055] discloses a server system),
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 7
`
`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 (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).
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 8
`
`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.
`
`However, the combination of Cross-Crosa-Cisler and Danninger, hereinafter Cross-Crosa-Cisler-
`
`Danninger, fails to teach that the previously saved search is re-executed automatically without user
`
`intervention.
`
`White et al. teaches a recurrent searching method and thus teaches the limitation of re-executing
`
`a first one of the previously saved searches automatically without user intervention (the method moves
`
`to decision node 512, and the recurrent searching system determines whether a recurrent
`
`searching period has ended
`
`the method can proceed to decision node 514, and the recurrent
`
`searching system can determine whether it has received an indication that there is new EPG data
`
`accessible to the recurrent searching system if there is new EPG data accessible to the
`
`recurrent searching system, the method can return to block 504, and the recurrent searching
`
`system can perform another search of the EPG data that is accessible to the recurrent searching
`
`system, including new EPG data, previous EPG data, or a combination thereof, White et al. [0063];
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 9
`
`see also Fig. 5, where the re-execution of the previously saved search is performed in order by
`
`items 512, 514 and 504 as indicated by the flow chart; see also MPEP 2144.04 for automating a
`
`known manual activity); and
`
`receiving a most recent search result for a more recent date/time based on the re-executed first
`
`one of the previously saved searches (note that Cisler et al. [0062] where “the search component 118
`
`can present results of a search of the current state of the system 100 within a desktop user
`
`interface”, which is combined with White et al. [0063] for teaching the re-execution of a previously
`
`saved search).
`
`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-
`
`Danninger with the feature taught by White et al. as the periodic re-execution of a previously saved
`
`search will allow the system to detect new information or results that were not available when the saved
`
`search was previously conducted, keeping the list of results updated.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger and White et al., hereinafter
`
`Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White-White, discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined
`
`above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White teaches 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 4, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White discloses all the features with respect to
`
`claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White teaches 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]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 10
`
`Regarding claim 5, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White discloses all the features with respect to
`
`claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Cross-Crosa-Cisler-Danninger-White 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 from a remote
`
`server (search result links are generated using previously entered search terms as well as
`
`additional search terms from the user, Cross et al. [0038]; Cross et al. [0055] discloses a server
`
`system), 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 11
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 12
`
`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.
`
`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] &
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/558,648
`Art Unit: 2152
`
`Page 13
`
`[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 perform