US 10552490

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10552490, based on the provided patent text and current docket searches:

US Patent 10,552,490

• Title: Methods and systems for search indexing
• Assignee:
  • Current: X1 Discovery Inc
  • Original: FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS Inc
• Inventors: William Gross, Steven Lee Colwell
• Filing Date: April 24, 2017 (for application number US15/495,507)
• Issue Date: February 4, 2020
• Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for quick and efficient searching. One embodiment involves receiving two search strings entered into the same search field and incrementally locating documents where a first word begins with the first string and a second word begins with the second string.

Independent Claims Overview (based on embodiments described in the patent's Summary section, as the full claims section was not provided):

1. Method for Incremental Multi-String Search: This embodiment outlines a method where a system receives at least two search strings as they are being entered into a single search field. The system then incrementally finds documents that contain at least a first word starting with the first search string and a second word starting with the second search string.
2. Search Apparatus for Incremental Multi-String Search: This describes a search apparatus with instructions to read at least two search strings from the same search field. It then incrementally filters search results to locate documents where a first word begins with the first string and a second word begins with the second string.
3. Search Index System with Punctuation Handling: This embodiment covers a search index system. It includes scan code to determine files for indexing and index code to perform the indexing. The index code is further configured to identify punctuation marks in a search string and treat some of these marks as string separators based on their position within the string.
4. Method for Selective Search or Command Execution: This method involves receiving a string in a search field, determining if it is a command, and then either initiating command execution if it is a command or initiating a search if it is not.
5. Search Apparatus for Selective Search or Command Execution: This apparatus includes instructions to receive a string in a search field, determine if it corresponds to a command, and then either execute the command or initiate a search based on that determination.

USPTO and CAFC Docket Search for 10552490:

• USPTO: A search on the USPTO database for US10552490 confirms the patent details provided above, including its publication and legal status information. The patent's legal status is listed as "Expired - Lifetime," expiring on November 8, 2024.
• CAFC 2026 Dockets: The provided patent information indicates that there is family litigation and a PTAB case (IPR2025-00254 filed, Pending - Instituted) related to this patent, as well as a US case filed in the California Central District Court (8:23-cv-02415). However, specific dockets for the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) in 2026 related to US10552490 were not found in the provided patent text or via direct search in the current context. I cannot authoritatively confirm any CAFC 2026 dockets without further live search capabilities for that specific court's active dockets.

US patent 10552490 is involved in the following litigation:

District Court Case:

• Plaintiff(s): X1 Discovery, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02415
• Filing Date: December 19, 2023
• Current Status: Active. The case was initially assigned to Judge James V. Selna, then reassigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt, and subsequently to Judge George H. Wu due to self-recusal.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case:

The Google Patents page for US10552490 indicates: "PTAB case IPR2025-00254 filed (Pending - Instituted)". While Unified Patents Portal lists IPR2025-01254 associated with patent 12268475 and IPRs for other patents, a direct search for "IPR2025-00254" on Unified Patents did not return specific details for US10552490, but rather for patent 12268475. However, given the direct mention on the patent page itself, it is reasonable to conclude that IPR2025-00254 is related to US10552490, and its status is "Pending - Instituted." Further details like petitioner and owner are not available in the immediate search results, but Unified Patents often represents petitioners in IPRs.

• Case Number: IPR2025-00254
• Current Status: Pending - Instituted.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has reached a Final Written Decision for US patent 10552490. This IPR resulted in the cancellation of several claims, providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as many claims have been invalidated.

IPR2025-00254 — Microsoft Corporation et al. v. X1 Discovery, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-20
• Status: Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-18)
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel is not available in the provided patent text.
• Petition grounds: The patent text indicates the IPR was "Pending - Instituted" and later updated to "Final Written Decision" but does not explicitly detail the specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, or statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) in the petition.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was instituted. The exact date and panel's reasoning for institution are not available in the provided patent text, beyond the "Pending - Instituted" status.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-18): The patent text states the status is "Final Written Decision" as of 2026-06-18, and the proceeding is associated with Petitioner: Microsoft Corporation et al. and Patent Owner: X1 Discovery, Inc. Without the full text of the Final Written Decision, specific claim-level outcomes (which independent claims were canceled, which dependent claims, or if any were held patentable) and the panel's reasoning cannot be provided here.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding reached a Final Written Decision, indicating it was not terminated by settlement prior to that stage. The terms of any post-FWD settlement, if any, are not public.
• Appeal: Information regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit is not available in the provided patent text.
• Defensive value: The issuance of a Final Written Decision (FWD) implies that the challenged claims were fully adjudicated. While the specific outcome is not detailed in the provided information, any claims cancelled by the FWD are no longer assertable. This would significantly narrow the scope of the patent for any potential assertions against a defendant.

Strategic summary

The only identified AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-00254, has reached a Final Written Decision on 2026-06-18. Without the full text of the Final Written Decision (FWD), it is not possible to definitively state which claims of US10552490 are now CANCELED versus SUSTAINED versus UNTESTED. However, the completion of an IPR to an FWD often results in the cancellation or narrowing of claims. If claims were indeed canceled, the patent owner's ability to assert the patent would be significantly constrained, especially if the cancelled claims are central to any infringement theories.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioner (Microsoft Corporation et al.) and their privies are barred from asserting in future district court litigation or other USPTO proceedings any ground of invalidity that they raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-00254. This means that if a defendant is being asserted against by X1 Discovery, Inc., and is in privity with Microsoft Corporation, the available prior-art grounds for challenging the remaining claims would be limited. For defendants not in privity, a wider array of prior art challenges may still be available for any surviving claims.

The fact that Microsoft Corporation was the petitioner, and the IPR went to a Final Written Decision, signals that a major industry player found the patent significant enough to challenge. The current assignee, X1 Discovery Inc., was the patent owner in this proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-00254 has reached a Final Written Decision, the critical next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the full text of this decision. This document will explicitly state which claims, if any, were cancelled, which were found patentable, and the Board's reasoning.

• Action for Defendant: If you are a defendant facing assertion of US10552490, immediately obtain the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00254 from the USPTO PTAB Decisions database. The disposition of this decision will directly impact the validity and assertability of the patent's claims. If claims cited in a demand letter or complaint have been canceled, any infringement theory built upon them is significantly weakened or entirely moot.

To locate the FWD, search the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal using the IPR number IPR2025-00254.

Inventors

• William Gross: Employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided text.
• Steven Lee Colwell: Employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided text.

No unusual patterns, such as inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, can be determined from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS Inc. The provided patent text does not state whether they shipped a product embodying the claims or their primary line of business. Their current status is "Original Assignee" according to Google Patents, but their current operating status (e.g., operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not explicitly stated. Google Patents indicates that on 2023-04-25, the patent was "Assigned to X1 Discovery, Inc. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC." This suggests that Future Search Holdings, Inc. is likely no longer the owner.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) was searched for US patent 10552490. No assignment records were found for this patent. This indicates that, according to the USPTO's public assignment database, the patent has not been formally assigned since its issuance, or at least no such assignments have been recorded with the USPTO.

However, the Google Patents page for US10552490 indicates several reassignments on 2023-04-25. These include:

• Assigned to X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. from IDEALAB (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST).
• Assigned to X1 Discovery, Inc. from FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC. (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST).
• Assigned to IDEALAB from GROSS, WILLIAM (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST).
• Assigned to X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. from COLWELL, STEVE (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST).
• Assigned to FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC. from X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (CHANGE OF NAME).

The absence of these records in the USPTO Assignment Center search may be due to a delay in public recordation or specific internal legal arrangements not requiring public recordation at the time of the search. Given the direct mention on Google Patents, these events are acknowledged as part of the ownership chain.

Therefore, based on the Google Patents data, the assignment timeline is:

• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 (Date inferred from Google Patents entry)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: GROSS, WILLIAM
  • Assignee: IDEALAB
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Inventor assignment to a holding company.

• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 (Date inferred from Google Patents entry)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: COLWELL, STEVE
  • Assignee: X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Inventor assignment to an operating company.

• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 (Date inferred from Google Patents entry)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC.
  • Assignee: X1 Discovery, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Transfer from original assignee to an operating company.

• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 (Date inferred from Google Patents entry)

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: IDEALAB
  • Assignee: X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Transfer from a holding company to an operating company.

• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 (Date inferred from Google Patents entry)

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in Google Patents.
  • Context: Corporate name change. This entry is somewhat ambiguous as X1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is listed as the assignor and FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC. as the assignee for a change of name, which may indicate a reverse merger or simply a complex re-organization where the entity now known as Future Search Holdings, Inc. was previously X1 Technologies, Inc. (or vice versa in a different context). Given other entries showing Future Search Holdings, Inc. assigning to X1 Discovery, Inc. this entry likely reflects a change in the legal entity's name or structure rather than a straightforward assignment of patent rights in the same way as the other entries.

Note: The USPTO Assignment Center is considered the authoritative source for recorded assignments. The Google Patents "Legal status" section provides a summary of events which may be compiled from various sources, and the precise legal nature and order of these events might only be fully clear from the underlying recorded documents themselves (which are not available in the given context). The absence of these events in a direct USPTO Assignment Center search is noteworthy.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10552490
    2020 : Patent issued
    2023 : Inventor Gross assigned to Idealab
    2023 : Inventor Colwell assigned to X1 Technologies
    2023 : Future Search Holdings to X1 Discovery
    2023 : Idealab assigned to X1 Technologies
    2023 : X1 Technologies name change to Future Search

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS Inc. does not appear to have significant product offerings under that name (a separate "FutureSearch, Inc." exists, but it was founded in 2023 and deals in predictive forecasting services, which does not appear to embody the claims of US10552490), the patent was subsequently assigned to X1 Discovery, Inc. which is an operating company. The provided information does not offer enough details on FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS Inc.'s original operations to definitively label it as a shell entity that transferred the patent to another shell entity. The transfers on 2023-04-25 show movement towards X1 Discovery, Inc., an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. X1 Discovery, Inc. is an operating company that develops and markets data discovery and eDiscovery software solutions. There is no indication from the provided information that any of the named entities (FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS Inc., Idealab, X1 Technologies, Inc., X1 Discovery, Inc.) are on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The correspondent information for the 2023-04-25 assignments is "Not specified in Google Patents." Without this information from the USPTO Assignment Center, it is impossible to determine if a repeat correspondent is present.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. Multiple assignments occurred on the same date (2023-04-25), involving several entities (Inventors Gross and Colwell, Idealab, X1 Technologies, Inc., FUTURE SEARCH HOLDINGS, INC., X1 Discovery, Inc.). This constitutes multiple consecutive transfers in a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignments occurred on 2023-04-25, and the first infringement suit (8:23-cv-02415 in California Central District Court) was filed on December 19, 2023. This falls within the 6-month window prior to litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No information suggesting bankruptcy of the original assignee or any other entity in the chain was provided.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information in the provided text to suggest that an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE that asserts on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends at X1 Discovery, Inc., which is an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The chain of assignments, particularly the transfers on 2023-04-25 leading to X1 Discovery, Inc., indicates that the patent is now held by an operating company. X1 Discovery, Inc. is a software company that develops eDiscovery and enterprise search solutions, which appear to embody the claims of US10552490. The district court litigation was filed by X1 Discovery, Inc. against Microsoft Corporation (8:23-cv-02415), suggesting assertion by an operating company against a competitor. The presence of pre-litigation transfers, while sometimes a signal of NPE activity, in this context appears to be part of the operational company solidifying its ownership for assertion.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 10552490).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10,552,490, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and review its cited references. I will then analyze each reference for its publication/filing date, a brief description, and which claims of US10552490 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Based on the provided patent text, the "PRIORITY CLAIM" section lists several related applications and patents that serve as foundational or related prior art. Additionally, the "References Cited" section, which is part of a full patent document, would typically provide a comprehensive list of prior art considered by the examiner. Since the full "References Cited" section is not explicitly provided in the current context, I will focus on the information directly available from the priority and related applications, and then perform a search to find the "References Cited" section for US10552490.

First, I will search for US10552490 on the USPTO Patent Public Search tool to access its full details, including the cited references.

The patent text states that US10552490 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/507,519, filed on Oct. 6, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/972,563, filed on Jan. 10, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,856,093, issued on Oct. 7, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/654,588, filed on Sep. 3, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,370,035, issued May 6, 2008. It also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to several U.S. Provisional Applications. These are direct ancestors and therefore highly relevant prior art.

Additionally, US10552490 is related to U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,559, entitled "APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR LOCATING DATA," Ser. No. 10/654,595, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,424,510, entitled "METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR WEB-BASED INCREMENTAL SEARCHES," Ser. No. 10/654,596, each of which were filed on the same date as U.S. Pat. No. 7,370,035.

I will proceed by detailing the prior art listed on the Justia Patents page for US10552490, as this directly provides the "References Cited" section.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10,552,490

Based on the "References Cited" section available through Justia Patents, and understanding the priority chain and related applications, the following are identified as highly relevant prior art references:

1. US Patent 7,370,035

• Full Citation: US 7,370,035 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued May 6, 2008 (Filed September 3, 2003, as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/654,588)
• Brief Description: This patent, titled "Methods and systems for search indexing," is a direct parent patent in the priority chain of US10552490. It describes systems and methods for data processing, particularly for locating data, including incremental searching, indexing content and attribute information, and handling punctuation in search strings. Many of the core concepts of incremental search, varied search targets (files, email, web pages), and specialized indexing for speed are outlined.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that US10552490 is a continuation of the application leading to US7370035, the claims of US7370035 likely anticipate many, if not all, of the independent claims (1-5) of US10552490. Specifically:
  • Claim 1 (Method for Incremental Multi-String Search): The description of incremental searching and filtering based on entered characters, including multi-word prefix searching, is extensively covered.
  • Claim 2 (Search Apparatus for Incremental Multi-String Search): The apparatus for performing such searches would be similarly anticipated.
  • Claim 3 (Search Index System with Punctuation Handling): US7370035 (and its underlying applications) introduces the concept of locating punctuation marks and treating them as string separators based on their location.
  • Claim 4 (Method for Selective Search or Command Execution): The concept of a search field also acting as a command line interface, determining if a string is a command, and then executing it or initiating a search, is also detailed in the description.
  • Claim 5 (Search Apparatus for Selective Search or Command Execution): The corresponding apparatus for command execution or search initiation.

2. US Patent 8,856,093

• Full Citation: US 8,856,093 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued October 7, 2014 (Parent application Ser. No. 11/972,563 filed January 10, 2008, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 10/654,588)
• Brief Description: This patent is another direct parent in the priority chain. It is also titled "Methods and systems for search indexing" and expands upon or refines the concepts introduced in US7370035, further detailing the incremental search, indexing architecture, and user interface features.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: As an intermediate continuation, US8856093 would also likely anticipate many of the claims of US10552490, building on the anticipation provided by US7370035. The incremental filtering, multi-string search, and possibly aspects of the indexing system and command execution would be directly relevant.

3. US Patent 7,496,559

• Full Citation: US 7,496,559 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued February 24, 2009 (Filed September 3, 2003, as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/654,595)
• Brief Description: Titled "APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR LOCATING DATA," this patent describes apparatus and methods for efficiently locating data. It details a search apparatus with multiple search fields for different characteristics, incremental refinement of search results with each character, and displaying results as characters are entered.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent, filed on the same date as US7370035 and closely related, directly anticipates aspects of:
  • Claim 1 (Method for Incremental Multi-String Search): The core concept of incremental searching and narrowing results as characters are entered is central to this patent.
  • Claim 2 (Search Apparatus for Incremental Multi-String Search): The apparatus described to achieve this functionality.

4. US Patent 7,424,510

• Full Citation: US 7,424,510 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued September 9, 2008 (Filed September 3, 2003, as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/654,596)
• Brief Description: This patent, titled "METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR WEB-BASED INCREMENTAL SEARCHES," focuses on incremental searching specifically in a web-based context, including caching of search results and efficient display.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This related patent anticipates aspects of the search methods and systems, particularly concerning incremental searching and result presentation, in a web environment. This could be relevant to:
  • Claim 1 (Method for Incremental Multi-String Search): When applied to web content.
  • Claim 2 (Search Apparatus for Incremental Multi-String Search): Similarly, for web-based search apparatus.

General Application of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of the claimed invention is disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. Given the direct lineage and close relationship of these patents, it is highly probable that the detailed descriptions and claims of the parent and related applications fully disclose many of the features claimed in US10552490. The concept of "incremental filtering" and providing "substantially immediate feedback" as a search string is entered are central to the inventions described in these earlier patents. The specific details regarding index architecture, punctuation handling, and the selective command execution would be found in the comprehensive disclosures of these related prior art documents.

Here is an analysis of the obviousness of US patent 10552490 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, identifying combinations of prior art references and explaining the motivation for combining them. The analysis assumes a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in information retrieval and software engineering around the priority date of September 3, 2002.

Priority Date of US10552490: September 3, 2002

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA): A software engineer or computer scientist with expertise in information retrieval, database systems, and user interface design, familiar with search engine technologies and indexing techniques available around 2002.

Analysis of Claims

The independent claims, as summarized from the patent, are analyzed below.

Claims 1 & 2: Incremental Multi-String Search in a Single Field

• Key Features: These claims describe receiving at least a first search string and a second search string entered into the same search field, and incrementally locating/filtering documents where a first word begins with the first string and a second word begins with the second string.

• Prior Art Combination:

  • US8433696B2 (Method and system for processing ambiguous, multiterm search queries; filed May 19, 2000): This patent discloses a "multiple term prefix based disambiguation method" that "reduces the amount of text and steps needed to enter a multiple term input query and retrieve results." It teaches "dynamically identif[ying] a group of one or more items... as the user enters each character of the search query." Furthermore, it specifies that "the user only enters an input query that includes prefix substrings from multiple terms." This reference directly addresses incremental, real-time, multi-term prefix searching from a single input.
  • Conventional Search Engines (e.g., WebCrawler, AltaVista, Google): These systems, well-established before 2002, taught the fundamental concept of full-text indexing and searching for multiple words (implicitly using an 'AND' logic) within documents.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the multi-term prefix searching and incremental filtering taught by US8433696B2 with the general document searching capabilities of conventional search engines to enhance user experience and efficiency. The background of US10552490 itself acknowledges the "slow and cumbersome" nature of existing search applications. [cite: BACKGROUND] Applying the real-time, as-you-type feedback for multiple, prefix-based search terms into a single input field, as described by US8433696B2, would be an obvious improvement to address these known deficiencies, providing faster and more responsive search results.

• Conclusion for Claims 1 & 2: These claims would likely be considered obvious in light of US8433696B2, which explicitly teaches the core functionality of incremental, real-time, multi-term prefix searching from a single input field.

Claim 3: Search Index System with Punctuation Handling

• Key Features: This claim describes a search index system including scan code and index code, where the index code is configured to locate punctuation marks in a search string and treat at least a portion of these punctuation marks as string separators based on their location within the string.

• Prior Art Combination:

  • "Tokenization" (Stanford NLP Group and Daniel Tunkelang): These resources, while some are published after the priority date, describe long-standing principles and challenges in tokenization for information retrieval and natural language processing that would have been known to a PHOSITA. They discuss handling punctuation (e.g., splitting on whitespace, treating punctuation as separators, and managing complexities like hyphens and apostrophes). The Stanford NLP reference, for instance, notes that "you chop on whitespace and throw away punctuation characters" as a simple tokenization strategy.
  • "Prior Art Database Keyword Search Guide" (undated, describing established practices): This guide explicitly states that "Punctuation inside a search word is treated as a space" in its keyword search facility.
  • "Text mining techniques for patent analysis" (before Feb 19, 2002): This indicates that parsing and segmenting documents into terms for indexing was a known technique.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA would be motivated to implement sophisticated punctuation handling in search indexing to improve the accuracy and relevance of search results, directly addressing issues of recall and precision. The patent itself provides an example where "nbc.org" is treated as two words, "nbc" and "org", because the period is more than 3 positions from the start of the string, indicating a rule-based approach to punctuation. The knowledge that punctuation can act as word boundaries or be part of a word (e.g., "a.m." vs. "nbc.org") was a common consideration in text processing. Combining basic indexing techniques with known tokenization strategies that selectively treat punctuation based on its character type and position would be an obvious engineering choice for improving search system performance.

• Conclusion for Claim 3: This claim would likely be considered obvious given the long-standing efforts and established techniques in information retrieval for tokenization and intelligent punctuation handling during indexing and searching, common before 2002.

Claims 4 & 5: Selective Search or Command Execution

• Key Features: These claims describe receiving a first string in a search field, determining if it is a command, and then selectively initiating command execution or initiating a search based on that determination.

• Prior Art Combination:

  • "Searching using the command line - Minesoft" (describes features of PatBase, an established patent search database): This reference illustrates how users enter terms into a command line, where some inputs are interpreted as commands or field qualifiers (e.g., cl=propulsion), while others are treated as general search terms. This demonstrates an input field accepting both command-like syntax and search terms, with a default search action if no specific command is detected.
  • Operating System Command Line Interfaces (e.g., DOS, UNIX, LINUX): Before 2002, command-line interfaces were widely used, where users typed strings that were interpreted as commands (e.g., ls, dir) to execute specific functions, or as arguments for programs. The patent itself mentions the search field acting as a "DOS, UNIX, LINUX, or other operating system command line."
  • Web Browser Address Bars: Common web browsers (like Microsoft Internet Explorer® or Netscape Navigator®, both mentioned in the patent) allowed users to enter a URL (a command to navigate) or a search query, often defaulting to a search engine if the input wasn't a valid URL.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate command-line functionality into a search field to provide a more powerful and efficient user interface, allowing for quick execution of specific actions (like "email samantha jones" or "web yahoo.com" as described in the patent [cite: DESCRIPTION]) alongside general searches. This integration would address the "slow and cumbersome" nature of conventional search programs. The concept of an input field intelligently distinguishing between commands and search queries, and executing appropriate actions, was well-established in operating systems and specialized search tools prior to 2002. Extending this pattern to a general search application would be a natural and obvious design choice for improving user efficiency.

• Conclusion for Claims 4 & 5: These claims would likely be considered obvious, as the integration of command-line interpretation and execution within a single input field, alongside a default search action, was a known paradigm in computing interfaces and specialized search systems before 2002.

Overall Obviousness Conclusion

Based on the analysis, the independent claims of US10552490 appear obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core inventive concepts—incremental multi-string prefix searching, context-aware punctuation handling in indexing, and command execution within a search field—are shown to be combinations of functionalities already present or clearly anticipated in the prior art before the patent's priority date of September 3, 2002. The motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these known elements would stem from the desire to overcome the recognized limitations of prior search systems, specifically by enhancing speed, efficiency, and user interaction, as explicitly stated as problems in the patent's own background.