Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US11100184

This analysis addresses the obviousness of US Patent 11100184 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering the "Prior art keywords" provided in the patent document as representative of concepts known in the prior art. The keywords are: "search," "webpage," "missing," "search result," and "search term." The priority date for the patent is June 17, 2011.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention would be a software engineer or developer with experience in web search technologies, user interface design, and web data processing. Such an individual would be familiar with the operation of search engines, client-server architectures, web crawling, and common user experience (UX) challenges in navigating search results.

The core problem addressed by US11100184, as articulated in its background, is the user frustration and wasted time caused by clicking on search results that reference webpages where the expected search terms are "missing" or incomplete. The patent explicitly states, "Unfortunately today, it is frequent that many of the search term elements will be missing from the results webpage and in some cases all will be missing." and "Knowing in advance which webpages contain which search term elements would be useful to aid the user in minimizing lost time and frustration." These statements indicate that the problem and the general desirability of a solution were well-known in the prior art.

Given the existing knowledge represented by the "prior art keywords" and common practices in web development and user interface design by 2011, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these concepts to address the identified problem, leading to the features claimed in US11100184.

Obviousness of Annotating Search Results for Missing Search Terms (Claims 1, 7, 12, 17, 19)

A POSITA, aware of the basic operation of an "Internet search" using "search terms" to generate "search results" that link to "webpages" [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2], would also be familiar with the common problem of "missing" or incomplete "search term" presence on the referenced "webpage." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]

Motivation to combine: The primary motivation for a POSITA to combine these concepts would be to improve user efficiency and satisfaction. If a user enters "search terms" expecting an "AND" operation where all terms are present (as acknowledged by the patent, "the basic format for specifying a search with any search engine includes an implied AND-function of the specified search term elements" [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]), then encountering "search results" for "webpages" with "missing" terms is a known drawback. To mitigate this, a POSITA would naturally consider providing immediate feedback to the user on the "search results webpage" itself.

The solution of adding an "annotation" to a "search result grouping" to show "missing search term elements" (e.g., Claim 1) is an obvious application of known user interface principles. Annotations, indicators, or labels providing supplementary information about linked content were common in various digital interfaces. For instance, file browsers might show file types, or email clients might flag unread messages. Displaying specific "text representing the at least one search term element" that is missing (e.g., Claim 1) directly addresses the user's need for specific information about what they are not finding. Placing this annotation "at the bottom of the second search result grouping" (e.g., Claim 2) is a conventional design choice for supplementary information that should be visible but not interfere with the primary title/excerpt/URL.

The analysis to determine "missing search term elements" would involve programmatically visiting the referenced "webpage" (using a software program or "analysis engine" as described in the patent) and checking for the presence of the "search terms." This real-time analysis, while potentially resource-intensive, was becoming increasingly feasible with advancements in computing power and network speeds by 2011, as also noted by the patent ("Given the available speed of broadband connections today as well as the ever increasing speed of processors in personal computers this capability is definitely viable." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]).

Obviousness of Filtering Search Results (Claims 3, 8, 13, 21, 22)

Once a "search result" can be annotated to indicate "missing search term elements," the extension to "filtering" these results is also obvious to a POSITA.

Motivation to combine: Users often desire control over the information they consume. Just as email clients provided spam filters to remove unwanted messages, a POSITA would be motivated to provide a "selectable filtering function" to automatically "remove" unwanted "search results" (e.g., Claim 3) that are known to have "missing search term elements." This would further enhance user efficiency and focus, directly addressing the patent's stated goal of helping users "minimize lost time and frustration." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2] The patent itself acknowledges this user preference, stating, "Some users will prefer to view annotations of their search results and not have any information automatically removed. Other users may prefer to have unwanted categories of webpages removed automatically so they have less information to view." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]

The specific benefit for smaller display screens (e.g., Claim 4, 9, 14, 22), where removing results can "display an increased number of first type of search results," is an inherent and obvious advantage of any filtering mechanism, rather than a non-obvious feature of the filtering itself.

Obviousness of Advertising in Conjunction with Annotated Results (Claims 5, 10, 15, 19)

The integration of advertising with "Internet search results" was a well-established and primary business model for search engine providers by 2011.

Motivation to combine: A POSITA (particularly one involved in the business aspects of a search engine) would be motivated to continue displaying "selectable advertisements related to one or more of the search term elements" on the "search results webpage" (e.g., Claim 5) regardless of whether individual "search results" are annotated or filtered for "missing search term elements." The advertisements are typically generated based on the user's initial "search terms," representing their expressed interest, and thus remain relevant even if some organic "search results" are found to be suboptimal. The patent acknowledges this existing scenario: "advertisements are sometimes placed on search results webpages that relate to the user's search term elements, even though some of those search terms are missing in referenced and/or descendant webpages." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2] Therefore, maintaining advertising based on the "search term elements" alongside annotated or filtered results would be an obvious business and technical decision.

Obviousness of Analyzing Descendant Webpages (Claims 6, 11, 16, 17, 20)

Recognizing that content is often distributed across multiple linked "webpages" (i.e., "descendant webpages") is fundamental to how the Internet operates and how web crawlers function.

Motivation to combine: A POSITA seeking to provide a more complete and accurate "annotation" regarding "missing search term elements" would be motivated to extend the analysis beyond the initially referenced "webpage" to its "descendant webpages" (e.g., Claim 6). This is particularly relevant in scenarios where a primary "webpage" might serve as an abstract or summary, with the full content (and thus the potentially "missing search terms") residing on a directly linked "descendant webpage," as described in the patent: "Sometimes a subset of search term elements will be contained in a webpage located at a search result URL link while other specified search term elements are located in descendant webpages of the webpage located at the search result URL link. Thus, the descendant webpage may still at times be useful to the user." [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2] The patent also notes a "frequent scenario" where a "full document that requires payment or registration" on a descendant page contains the missing terms. [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]

Analyzing these "descendant webpages" to determine the presence of "search term elements" and updating the "annotation" accordingly (e.g., differentiating between a "third type" where terms are found in a descendant and a "fourth type" where they are still missing, as in Claim 6, 11, 16, 17, 20) would be an obvious refinement. This would prevent users from discarding a potentially valuable "search result" simply because the terms were not immediately visible on the landing page. Consistently displaying the "fourth type" of search result (where terms are missing on the main page and directly linked descendant pages) in the same manner as results missing terms only on the main page reinforces the user warning and streamlines the user experience.

In conclusion, the various features of US Patent 11100184—namely, annotating search results for missing search terms, offering filtering based on these annotations, displaying related advertisements, and extending the analysis to descendant webpages—represent obvious combinations of well-known internet "search" concepts and common user interface design principles to address a recognized problem of inefficient "search result" navigation and to maintain existing advertising revenue models, all apparent to a POSITA by the priority date.