US 11100184

US Patent 11100184, titled "Internet search results annotation, filtering, and advertising with respect to search term elements," was issued on August 24, 2021, from an application filed on December 7, 2020. The patent is currently assigned to Accusearch Technologies LLC, and the inventor is Robert Osann, Jr.

Abstract:
The patent addresses issues in Internet searches where search results often reference webpages that don't contain all the user-submitted search term elements. This can lead to wasted time when users click on irrelevant links, or when advertisements are shown that relate to missing search terms. The invention focuses on annotating Internet search results to highlight missing search term elements on referenced and descendant webpages. It also allows for optional filtering of search results that lack certain terms and displays advertisements relevant to the search terms. The annotations aim to prevent users from clicking on unproductive links, thereby saving time and accelerating the search process.

Plain-language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for an Internet search system to provide a user interface that helps users quickly identify search results referencing webpages missing at least one search term element, without having to open those webpages. The method involves:

  • Receiving a search request with one or more search terms.
  • Generating search results, including a "first type" that links to a webpage containing all terms and a "second type" that links to a webpage missing at least one term.
  • Displaying both types of search results.
  • Presenting the "first type" result as a grouping (with title, link, excerpt, or URL) without an annotation for missing terms.
  • Presenting the "second type" result as a grouping (with title, link, excerpt, or URL) that does include a text annotation specifically showing the missing search term element.
  • The core idea is that this annotation allows the user to know a term is missing without clicking the link, making the search faster.

• Independent Claim 7 (System for Search Engine Provider): This claim outlines a system for an Internet search engine provider to offer a user interface that readily informs users when a search result links to a webpage missing a search term, again, without opening the page. The system comprises:

  • One or more servers that receive a search request with multiple search term elements for "AND" operations (meaning all terms should ideally be present).
  • These servers perform a search and produce results, including a "first type" (webpage with all terms) and a "second type" (webpage missing at least one term, contrary to "AND" logic).
  • The servers provide these results for display on the user's device.
  • The "first type" is displayed as a grouping without a missing term annotation.
  • The "second type" is displayed as a grouping with a "missing search term annotation" that is text representing the missing term(s), placed at the bottom of the grouping.
  • This annotation serves as a warning, enabling the user to quickly identify missing terms and save time.

• Independent Claim 12 (System for User-Operated Computing Device): This claim describes a system from the perspective of the user's computing device (e.g., desktop, laptop, smartphone, tablet) that provides an interactive graphical user interface for the described functionality. The system involves:

  • A user-operated computing device capable of sending and receiving information from a search engine.
  • The interface allows the user to submit a search request with multiple search terms for "AND" operations.
  • The device receives search results, including "first type" (webpage with all terms) and "second type" (webpage missing terms, contrary to "AND" logic).
  • The "first type" result is displayed without a missing term annotation.
  • The "second type" result is displayed with a "missing search term annotation" (text representing the missing term(s)) at the bottom of its grouping.
  • This annotation warns the user and helps save time by avoiding irrelevant clicks.

• Independent Claim 17 (System for Search Engine Provider with Advertisements and Descendant Pages): This claim is a more detailed system claim for a search engine provider, similar to Claim 7, but explicitly incorporating advertisements and handling of descendant webpages. The system comprises:

  • One or more servers receiving a search request with multiple search term elements for "AND" operations.
  • These servers perform a search and produce results including a "first type" (webpage with all terms) and a "second type" (webpage missing terms, contrary to "AND" logic).
  • The servers provide these results for display on the user's device.
  • The "first type" is displayed as a grouping without a missing term annotation.
  • The "second type" is displayed as a grouping with a text annotation representing the missing term(s) at the bottom.
  • The display also shows one or more selectable advertisements related to the search terms.
  • Crucially, it also addresses "third type" results (missing a term, but a directly linked descendant webpage has it) and "fourth type" results (missing a term, and all directly linked descendant webpages also miss it), explicitly stating that the "fourth type" is displayed in the same manner as the "second type" (with the missing term annotation).
  • The annotation's purpose is to allow the user to discern missing terms without opening the webpage, enabling a faster search process.

• Independent Claim 19 (Method for Advertising): This claim focuses on the advertising aspect in conjunction with Internet search results, particularly when some referenced webpages are missing search term elements. The method involves:

  • Receiving a search request with one or more search terms for "AND" operations.
  • Performing a search to produce results, including a "first search result" referencing a webpage that is missing one or more search terms (contrary to "AND" guidelines).
  • Transmitting a search results webpage to the user's device, displaying the "first search result" as a grouping.
  • This "first search result grouping" includes a missing search term annotation (text representing the missing term(s)) at the bottom.
  • The search results webpage also includes one or more selectable advertisements related to the search term elements.
  • The annotation warns the user about missing terms, encouraging them not to select that search result to save time.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 11100184, a search for patent cases and filings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 2026 did not explicitly return results for patent number 11100184. The search results provided general information about CAFC cases, including patent infringement cases and various patent-related appeals in 2026, but no direct mention of US11100184B2. Therefore, I cannot authoritatively confirm any ongoing litigation specific to this patent in the CAFC for 2026 at this time.

Known litigation involving US patent 11100184 includes:

1. United States District Court, District of Delaware

   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00514 [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]
   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]
   • Status: The case is filed. Further details regarding plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing date, and outcome are not available from the provided search results. [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

   • Case Number: IPR2026-00288 [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]
   • Jurisdiction: PTAB (United States Patent and Trademark Office) [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]
   • Status: Pending. Further details regarding petitioner(s), patent owner(s), and filing date are not available from the provided search results. [cite: The full patent text of US11100184B2]

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11100184. This proceeding is active and pending, with the status of the claims yet to be determined. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent is currently undergoing an Inter Partes Review, which presents an opportunity for potential invalidation of claims.

IPR2026-00288 — Google LLC v. Robert Osann JR.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-13
• Status: Pending. The proceeding is ongoing, and no final decision has been reached.
• Judge panel:
• Petition grounds:
• Institution decision: The institution decision deadline for IPR2026-00288 is 2026-09-13.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued, as the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR presents a direct challenge to the patent's claims. Depending on the outcome of the institution decision and subsequent Final Written Decision, claims may be invalidated, significantly impacting any assertion of this patent. A defendant facing assertion should closely monitor this proceeding for potential strategic opportunities.

Strategic summary

As of today, US Patent 11100184 has all its claims currently untested by a final PTAB decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00288, is still in the pre-institution phase. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB yet.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00288 is instituted, the petitioner (Google LLC) and its privies would be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR against the patent in future district court litigation or other PTAB proceedings, for any claims that are ultimately found patentable. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised or institutable in this IPR would still be available.

The filing of IPR2026-00288 by Google LLC indicates that a significant player in the tech industry sees potential vulnerabilities in patent US11100184. The petitioner, Google LLC, is a major operating company. Robert Osann JR. is listed as the inventor, and Accusearch Technologies LLC is the current assignee. Unified Patents has also filed litigation in Delaware District Court and another PTAB case (IPR2026-00288). This suggests a pattern of defensive action against the patent.

Recommended next steps

• The institution decision for IPR2026-00288 is due by 2026-09-13. It is crucial to monitor the outcome of this decision, as it will determine whether the PTAB proceeds to a full trial on the merits of the challenged claims. Access to the petition and any preliminary responses would provide insight into the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted. Further information on the proceeding can be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal.
• If the IPR is instituted, track the trial schedule, including the oral hearing and the statutory one-year deadline for the Final Written Decision, which would be approximately 2027-09-13 if instituted in September 2026.
• Given that the IPR is still pending, the claims of US11100184 are currently considered valid until proven otherwise. Any demand letters citing these claims should be evaluated in light of the ongoing IPR.
• Review the claims of US11100184 to understand their scope and how they might relate to any potential infringement theories.## Proceedings overview
  There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11100184. This proceeding is active and pending, with the status of the claims yet to be determined. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent is currently undergoing an Inter Partes Review, which presents an opportunity for potential invalidation of claims.

IPR2026-00288 — Google LLC v. Accusearch Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-13
• Status: Pending. The proceeding is ongoing, and no final decision has been reached. The last modification to this case was on 2026-05-18.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this IPR is not publicly available in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: The detailed petition grounds, including specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112), are not publicly available in the provided data. IPRs typically allow challenges based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications under § 102 or § 103.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The institution decision deadline for IPR2026-00288 is 2026-09-13 (six months from the filing date).
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued, as the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR presents a direct challenge to the patent's claims. Depending on the outcome of the institution decision and subsequent Final Written Decision, claims may be invalidated, significantly impacting any assertion of this patent. A defendant facing assertion should closely monitor this proceeding for potential strategic opportunities.

Strategic summary

As of today, US Patent 11100184 has all its claims currently untested by a final PTAB decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00288, is still in the pre-institution phase. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB yet.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00288 is instituted and proceeds to a final written decision, the petitioner (Google LLC) and its privies would be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR against the patent in future district court litigation or other PTAB proceedings, for any claims that are ultimately found patentable. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised or institutable in this IPR would still be available.

The filing of IPR2026-00288 by Google LLC indicates that a significant player in the tech industry sees potential vulnerabilities in patent US11100184. The current assignee, Accusearch Technologies LLC, acquired the patent on 2025-03-18. The fact that Google LLC, a major operating company, is the petitioner, alongside other litigation noted in the patent's history (a US case filed in Delaware District Court and a PTAB case IPR2026-00288 filed by Unified Patents, though only Google is listed as petitioner in the provided PTAB proceedings data), suggests a concerted defensive effort against this patent. The USPTO Director, John Squires, has taken over all IPR institution decisions since October 2025 and has also introduced new discretionary factors for institution as of March 11, 2026, which weigh domestic manufacturing presence and small business status. These new factors could influence the institution decision for IPR2026-00288.

Recommended next steps

• The institution decision for IPR2026-00288 is due by 2026-09-13. It is crucial for a defendant to closely monitor the outcome of this decision, as it will determine whether the PTAB proceeds to a full trial on the merits of the challenged claims.
• If the IPR is instituted, track the trial schedule, including the oral hearing and the statutory one-year deadline for the Final Written Decision, which would be approximately 2027-09-13.
• Given that the IPR is still pending, the claims of US11100184 are currently considered valid until proven otherwise. Any demand letters citing these claims should be evaluated in light of the ongoing IPR.
• Review the claims of US11100184 to understand their scope and how they might relate to any potential infringement theories.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US patent 11100184 is Robert Osann, Jr. At the time of the original priority filing (2011-06-17) and the filing of this specific patent application (2020-12-07), the original assignee was "Individual," indicating that Robert Osann, Jr. was likely self-employed or held the patent rights personally. There is no information to suggest he was employed by an entity other than himself for the purpose of this invention at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent application was an "Individual," referring to the inventor, Robert Osann, Jr. It is highly unlikely that an individual inventor would have "shipped a product embodying the claims" in a significant commercial sense, as the patent relates to modifying Internet search results and filtering, which would typically involve a software application or a plug-in for existing search engines. His primary line of business at the time of filing was likely that of an independent inventor or developer. Robert Osann, Jr. is no longer the assignee, having assigned the patent to Accusearch Technologies LLC in March 2025.

Assignment timeline

• 2025-03-18 (executed) / recorded 2025-03-27 — Reel 060133/0586
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: OSANN, ROBERT JR.
  • Assignee: ACCUSEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: JEFFRY N. HESTON, ESQ.; The Heston Law Firm, PLLC; 380 S. 4th Street W., Missoula, MT, 59801
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter (The individual inventor assigned the patent to an LLC that subsequently engaged in patent assertion.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11100184
    2011 : Priority Date
    2020 : Filed by Individual
    2021 : Issued to Individual
    2025 : Litigation initiated
         : Assigned to Accusearch Tech LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was assigned from an individual inventor to Accusearch Technologies LLC. Accusearch Technologies LLC is listed by Unified Patents as being involved in district court litigation (1:25-cv-00514 in Delaware District Court) and an IPR petition (IPR2026-00288), indicating an assertion-focused business model rather than product development.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Accusearch Technologies LLC, is explicitly identified through its involvement in litigation (US case 1:25-cv-00514) and an IPR challenge (IPR2026-00288) referenced by Unified Patents, which tracks known Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Only one assignment record is found for this patent, featuring JEFFRY N. HESTON, ESQ. as the correspondent (Reel 060133/0586). Without additional assignment records for this patent or a broader analysis of other patents in the firm's portfolio, it cannot be determined if this correspondent is a repeat player in a chain of transfers for this specific patent.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment for this patent (Reel 060133/0586), preventing the observation of multiple consecutive transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment of the patent to Accusearch Technologies LLC was executed on 2025-03-18. This occurred after the "First worldwide family litigation filed" on 2025-02-14 and a "US case filed in Delaware District Court" (1:25-cv-00514) was initiated in 2025, placing the assignment within six months of litigation activity involving the patent family.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that the original inventor, Robert Osann, Jr., or any prior assignee underwent bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — Unclear. The initial assignor was an individual inventor, not an operating company. While the patent was transferred to an asserting entity, there is no evidence to suggest this transfer was made by an operating company to assert against competitors on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee, Accusearch Technologies LLC, is actively involved in patent litigation, as evidenced by district court cases and IPRs where it is the patent owner being challenged. Unified Patents is acting as a petitioner against the patent, not holding it defensively.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent was transferred from an individual inventor to Accusearch Technologies LLC on March 18, 2025 (Reel 060133/0586), shortly after litigation related to the patent family commenced on February 14, 2025. Accusearch Technologies LLC is actively engaged in patent assertion, as indicated by its involvement in a district court case (1:25-cv-00514) and an IPR challenge (IPR2026-00288) noted by Unified Patents. These factors strongly suggest Accusearch Technologies LLC operates as a Non-Practicing Entity.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search for patent number 11100184.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11100184, I will perform a search on the USPTO database for the patent number and then analyze its cited references.

Prior Art for US Patent 11100184

US Patent 11100184 lists the following as prior art. These are continuations in a family of patents, demonstrating a progression of the invention's concepts.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 13/163,614
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on June 17, 2011.
Brief Description: Titled "Automatic Webpage Characterization and Search Results Annotation," this application introduces the foundational concepts of analyzing webpages referenced by search results, characterizing their content and composition, and annotating the search results to convey these characteristics to the user.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that 11100184 is a continuation of this application, the prior art likely anticipates elements of all independent claims (Claims 1, 7, 12, 17, and 19) relating to the core idea of analyzing, characterizing, and annotating search results to provide users with information about referenced webpages. Specifically, the general methods and systems for displaying search results with annotations, as described in the claims, would find their genesis here.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 14/820,433
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on August 6, 2015.
Brief Description: Titled "Automatic Webpage Characterization and Search Results Annotation," this application builds upon the previous one, further developing the methods and systems for analyzing and annotating search results based on webpage characteristics.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This continues to anticipate aspects of all independent claims (Claims 1, 7, 12, 17, and 19), particularly those concerning the automatic characterization and annotation of webpages in search results. The evolution of the annotation types and criteria for characterization likely find their basis in this application.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 15/383,907
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on December 19, 2016.
Brief Description: Titled "Automatic Webpage Characterization and Search Results Filtering," this application introduces the additional functionality of filtering search results based on the determined webpage characteristics, alongside annotation.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This application is highly relevant to claims involving filtering. Specifically, it would anticipate aspects of Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, and 22, which describe selectable filtering functions and the removal of search result groupings. The filtering criteria and the underlying characterization process for filtering would be established here.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 16/199,192
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on November 25, 2018.
Brief Description: Titled "Internet Search Results Annotation for Missing Search Terms in Descendant Webpages," this application specifically addresses the annotation of search results to indicate the presence or absence of search terms not only on the primary referenced webpage but also on its descendant webpages.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This application directly anticipates elements in Claims 6, 11, 16, 17, and 20, which detail the handling and annotation concerning search terms found in descendant webpages, and how "fourth type" results (where terms are missing from both the primary and descendant pages) are treated.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 16/553,900
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on August 28, 2019.
Brief Description: Titled "Internet Search Results Annotation and Filtering for Missing Search Terms," this application further refines the annotation and filtering mechanisms specifically related to missing search terms.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This application would anticipate the refined aspects of annotation and filtering for missing search terms as described in the independent claims (1, 7, 12, 17, and 19), particularly as they relate to explicitly showing missing search terms in annotations and using this as a basis for filtering.

Full Citation: U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 16/790,057
Publication/Filing Date: Filed on February 13, 2020.
Brief Description: Titled "Internet Search Results Annotation for Search Term Elements Present or Absent in Referenced Webpages and Descendant Webpages," this application further elaborates on the annotation of search results to indicate the presence or absence of search term elements on both referenced and descendant webpages.
Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This application, being a direct continuation, is highly likely to anticipate the detailed methods and systems for annotating based on the presence or absence of search terms in both referenced and descendant webpages, as found throughout the independent claims of US11100184B2, particularly Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20.

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.