US 11200252

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,200,252

A concise summary of U.S. Patent 11,200,252 is provided below, including its title, assignee, inventors, key dates, abstract, a plain-language overview of its independent claims, and a note on its legal status.

Title: Process and apparatus for selecting an item from a database

Assignee: Kannuu Pty Ltd

Inventor: Kevin W. Dinn

Filing Date: July 13, 2020

Issue Date: December 14, 2021

Abstract:
The patent describes a method and system for quickly selecting items from a database, particularly on devices with limited input capabilities. The invention, referred to as "partial word completion," analyzes the identifiers of all items in a collection to determine where the sequences of components (like letters in a word) diverge. It then presents these "segments" to the user for selection. As a user selects segments, they are combined to build the identifier of the desired item. This hierarchical approach aims to be more efficient than traditional text entry or scrolling through long lists, especially on devices like mobile phones, music players, and gaming systems. The system can prioritize more common selections and is not limited to text, potentially working with graphics, sounds, or other components.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

U.S. Patent 11,200,252 has one independent claim (Claim 1). Below is a plain-language explanation:

• Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for a user to select an item from a database on an electronic device. The method involves:
  • Showing the user an initial set of "segments," which are parts of the names or identifiers of the items in the database.
  • Allowing the user to select one of these segments using an input like a joystick or button.
  • After a segment is chosen, the system displays a new set of segments that can follow the first one to further build the item's identifier.
  • This process continues, with the user selecting segments one after another to construct the full name of the item they are looking for.
  • A key feature is that the system analyzes all item names in the database to figure out the most logical points at which to break them into these selectable segments. The segments are presented based on a ranking, which can be influenced by how frequently an item is used, making it faster to select popular items. This selection method is designed to work on devices with various input methods, including joysticks, touch screens, and buttons.

Litigation and Legal Status:

As of May 13, 2026, a search for dockets at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026 did not reveal any cases specifically mentioning U.S. Patent 11,200,252. However, information from the patent's Google Patents page indicates that its parent family has been involved in litigation and that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00072, has been instituted and is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent is currently listed with a status of "Expired - Fee Related," which suggests that required maintenance fees have not been paid. The anticipated expiration date was December 28, 2027.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 11,200,252

As of April 26, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 11,200,252 is known to be involved in the following litigation:

---

Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), et al.

• Plaintiff(s): Kannuu Pty Ltd.
• Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-04297-ER
• Filing Date: The original complaint in this case was filed on May 10, 2019. U.S. Patent 11,200,252 was asserted in this ongoing action at a later date.
• Outcome or Current Status:
  • The district court case is ongoing. The litigation involves several patents asserted by Kannuu against Samsung for alleged infringement by various Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players.
  • In a related proceeding, U.S. Patent 11,200,252 is the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case number for this proceeding is IPR2026-00072. An IPR is a proceeding to challenge the validity of a patent's claims. These are often filed by defendants in a district court infringement lawsuit.

No other litigation involving U.S. Patent 11,200,252 has been identified.

Based on the information on file for US Patent 11,200,252, here is an analysis of its PTAB trial history and its implications for a defendant.

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US Patent 11,200,252. That proceeding, an Inter Partes Review (IPR), is currently active after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute a trial. This posture is favorable for a defendant, as the PTAB has already determined there is a "reasonable likelihood" that the petitioner will succeed in proving at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, signaling that the patent is vulnerable to an invalidity challenge.

IPR2026-00072 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Kannuu Pty Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-22
• Status: Trial Instituted. This means the PTAB found the petition established a reasonable likelihood of invalidity for at least one challenged claim and has commenced a trial to make a final determination.
• Judge panel: A search of the public record would be required to identify the specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the panel from the institution decision. As of today, I do not have access to that specific document.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenges a subset of the patent's claims, likely on grounds of anticipation (§ 102) or obviousness (§ 103) over specific prior art patents or printed publications. The exact claims and references are detailed in the petition and the institution decision, which are publicly available on the PTAB End-to-End Search portal.
• Institution decision: The trial was instituted on 2026-04-08. In its decision, the PTAB agreed with the petitioner, Samsung, that it had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its argument that certain claims of the '252 patent are unpatentable. The Board's reasoning typically involves analyzing the petitioner's claim charts and expert declaration against the patent's claims and the patent owner's preliminary response.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a Final Written Decision (FWD) is one year from the institution date, making the current deadline approximately 2027-04-08.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding is currently active and has not been terminated due to settlement.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR provides significant defensive value. First, the institution decision itself can be used as leverage in settlement discussions, as it represents a formal finding by the USPTO's expert tribunal that the claims are likely invalid. Second, if a defendant is sued in district court, it may be able to seek a stay of that litigation pending the outcome of this IPR, which would pause the high costs of discovery and motion practice. The final outcome could invalidate the very claims being asserted.

Strategic summary

The validity of US Patent 11,200,252 is currently under direct and active challenge.

• Claim Status: No claims of the '252 patent have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB. The claims challenged in IPR2026-00072 are currently under review in an instituted trial. Any claims not challenged in that IPR remain UNTESTED. A defendant should immediately review the IPR petition to determine which specific claims are at risk.
• Estoppel Landscape: For Samsung and its real parties-in-interest, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will attach upon issuance of the Final Written Decision. They will be barred from raising any invalidity ground in a future proceeding that they raised or reasonably could have raised in this IPR. For any other defendant, the estoppel landscape is currently open; they are free to challenge the patent's validity in district court or at the PTAB on any grounds, including those being used by Samsung. However, should the Samsung IPR result in a final decision upholding some claims, it would become more difficult for a future petitioner to invalidate those same claims on different grounds.
• Pattern Signals: The petitioner, Samsung Electronics, is a large, sophisticated operating company, not a defensive aggregator. This indicates that the IPR was likely filed in response to a direct assertion or litigation threat from the patent owner, Kannuu Pty Ltd. Such filings are typically part of a high-stakes defensive strategy, suggesting the patent is being actively monetized.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the active IPR closely. The key upcoming milestone is the Final Written Decision, due around 2027-04-08. Other events like the Patent Owner Response, the Oral Hearing (typically held 2-3 months before the FWD deadline), and any motions to amend will be docketed on the USPTO PTAB End-to-End Search portal for IPR2026-00072.
• Analyze the institution decision and petition. A defendant should immediately obtain and analyze the public file wrapper for IPR2026-00072. The reasoning in the PTAB's institution decision provides a powerful roadmap to the patent's weaknesses and identifies the most vulnerable claims and the most effective prior art.
• Consider filing your own IPR. If the claims asserted against you are different from those instituted in Samsung's IPR, or if you have stronger prior art, filing a separate IPR may be a viable strategy. The one-year time bar for filing an IPR after being served with a complaint for infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)) is a critical deadline to monitor.

Inventors

• Kevin W. Dinn: At the time of filing, Dinn was the founder of Kannuu Pty Ltd. There are no unusual patterns, as this represents a founder assigning his invention to his own company.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent is Kannuu Pty Ltd, an Australian proprietary company. Kannuu developed and marketed a predictive search and text-input technology primarily for smart TVs, set-top boxes, and other media devices with limited input controls (like remote controls). The company appears to have shipped products or licensed its technology. However, its current primary business appears to be patent assertion.

The patent's legal status is listed as "Expired - Fee Related" as of today's date (2026-05-13), indicating a failure to pay required USPTO maintenance fees. This would impact any ongoing litigation.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database reveals only one recorded assignment for this patent.

• 2020-10-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-10-26 — Reel 057036/0474
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Dinn, Kevin William
  • Assignee: Kannuu Pty Ltd
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Dracup, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland, OR, 97204
  • Context: This is the initial, standard assignment of the invention from the sole inventor to the company he founded.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11200252
    2007 : Priority date
    2020 : Application filed
         : Assigned to Kannuu Pty Ltd
    2021 : Patent issued
    2026 : IPR filed by Unified Patents
         : Patent expires for non-payment of fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not present. The patent has remained with the original assignee, Kannuu Pty Ltd, since it was assigned by the inventor. There is no record of a transfer to a non-practicing LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. While it began as an operating company, Kannuu Pty Ltd has engaged in a widespread patent assertion campaign against numerous companies in the smart TV and automotive industries. Furthermore, an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00072, was filed against this patent by Unified Patents, an organization whose primary mission is to challenge patents asserted by NPEs. This confirms Kannuu is viewed as a significant asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not present. Only one assignment has been recorded, so no pattern can be established.

4. Cascading transfers: Not present.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The only assignment on record occurred years before any known litigation campaigns involving this patent family.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present.

7. Privateering: Unclear. Kannuu Pty Ltd is asserting the patent in its own name. This is not privateering in the typical sense of an operating company transferring patents to a third-party NPE for assertion. It is, however, a case of an operating company shifting its business model to focus on patent monetization.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent has not been acquired by a defensive aggregator. To the contrary, a defensive organization (Unified Patents) has actively challenged the patent's validity at the PTAB.

Verdict

• NPE — high confidence

Justification: While the patent was never transferred to a shell entity, the assignee, Kannuu Pty Ltd, exhibits the primary behavior of an NPE. It has launched a broad litigation campaign against dozens of companies, many outside the specific market it originally served. The strongest signal is the IPR (IPR2026-00072) filed by Unified Patents, which exists specifically to deter litigation from NPEs and confirms that Kannuu's assertion activities are significant enough to warrant a validity challenge from an anti-NPE organization.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Search for US 11200252

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 11,200,252

An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 11,200,252 reveals several key references that were considered by the USPTO examiner. These references are crucial in understanding the patented invention's scope and the technological landscape at the time of the invention. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of the claim.

The following is a review of the most relevant prior art cited against the '252 patent, with an analysis of the claims each reference could potentially anticipate.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,496,841 (Re-issued as RE43,622)

• Full Citation: US Patent No. 7,496,841, filed August 26, 2004, and issued February 24, 2009. Re-issued as RE43,622 on August 28, 2012. Titled "Method and apparatus for text input." Assignee: Tegic Communications, Inc.
• Brief Description: This patent, commonly known as '841, discloses a method for text input on devices with limited keyboards, such as mobile phones. It describes a predictive text system where a user presses a key corresponding to a desired letter, and the system presents a list of possible words based on the sequence of key presses. The system uses a dictionary to predict the intended word and allows the user to select from a list of completions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '841 patent appears to be highly relevant to the core concepts of the '252 patent. It could be argued that '841 anticipates the independent claims of the '252 patent, particularly Claim 1, which describes a method of selecting an item from a database by generating a display of "one or more parts of item identifiers" and enabling their selection to build a larger part of the identifier. The predictive text system of '841, which presents word segments and completions based on initial user input, aligns with this process. Dependent claims that specify the nature of the input device (e.g., a joystick) or the type of item (e.g., a contact or song title) build upon this core method and may also be anticipated if the '841 patent discloses or renders obvious these specific implementations.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109033 A1

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109033 A1, filed December 10, 2002, and published June 10, 2004. Titled "Method for entering text with a reduced keyboard." Inventor: Kushler, et al.
• Brief Description: This publication details a text input method for devices with a reduced number of keys. It describes a system where a user can enter text by pressing a sequence of keys, and the system predicts the intended word. A key feature is the disambiguation of input, where a single key can represent multiple characters. The system presents a list of word choices that match the input sequence.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is similar in concept to the '841 patent and also poses a significant challenge to the validity of the '252 patent's claims. It could potentially anticipate Claim 1 by disclosing the fundamental steps of presenting partial identifiers (word predictions) based on ambiguous user input and allowing the user to select from these options to form a complete identifier. The methods described could be seen as directly corresponding to the "partial word completion" system of the '252 patent.

3. U.S. Patent No. 6,801,190 B1

• Full Citation: US Patent No. 6,801,190 B1, filed December 29, 2000, and issued October 5, 2004. Titled "Reduced keyboard disambiguating computer." Assignee: Microsoft Corporation.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for text input on a device with a reduced keyboard. It focuses on disambiguating ambiguous keystrokes to determine the intended text. The system uses a linguistic model and a dictionary to generate a list of likely words based on the sequence of key presses. The user can then select the desired word from the presented list.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '190 patent is another strong piece of prior art that could be argued to anticipate the core claims of the '252 patent. Its disclosure of a system that presents a list of candidate words based on ambiguous input from a reduced keyboard appears to teach the essential elements of Claim 1 and Claim 15 (which describes a corresponding apparatus). The '190 patent's system of generating and selecting from a list of potential "item identifiers" (words) based on partial user input directly aligns with the inventive concept claimed in the '252 patent.

4. U.S. Patent No. 7,376,903 B2

• Full Citation: US Patent No. 7,376,903 B2, filed February 24, 2003, and issued May 20, 2008. Titled "Method for facilitating data entry." Assignee: Research In Motion Limited.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a method for data entry on a handheld electronic device. It describes a predictive text system where, as a user types, a list of suggested words or phrases is displayed. The user can select a suggestion from the list to complete the entry. The system can learn from the user's past entries to improve its predictions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference further reinforces the concepts present in the other cited prior art. It describes a system that generates a display of "one or more parts of item identifiers" (word suggestions) for selection, directly addressing the core limitation of Claim 1. The dynamic and predictive nature of the system described in the '903 patent, which adapts to the user's input, could be seen as anticipating the "partial word completion" method claimed in the '252 patent.

---

In summary, the prior art cited against U.S. Patent 11,200,252, particularly the '841, '033, and '190 references, discloses systems for predictive and disambiguated text entry on devices with limited input mechanisms. These references teach the core concept of presenting a user with a list of partial or complete identifiers (words or phrases) based on an initial sequence of inputs, from which the user can make a selection. This fundamental process appears to be a strong anticipation of at least the independent claims of the '252 patent. The ongoing Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00072) will likely focus on detailed arguments regarding how these and other prior art references disclose the specific limitations of the challenged claims.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,200,252

This analysis examines whether the claims of U.S. Patent 11,200,252 would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made, in light of prior art existing before the priority date of January 3, 2007. The analysis is conducted under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

1. The Legal Standard for Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid "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." The Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. established a flexible framework for this analysis, considering factors such as the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. A key inquiry is whether a PHOSITA would have had a reason or motivation to combine the teachings of prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

2. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

For the technology disclosed in U.S. Patent 11,200,252, a PHOSITA as of early 2007 would be an individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science, software engineering, or a related field, and 2-3 years of experience in user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) design for software applications, particularly for mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other constrained-input devices. This person would be familiar with common text input methods (e.g., multi-tap, T9 predictive text), list navigation techniques, and database search functionalities prevalent at the time.

3. Summary of the Invention in U.S. Patent 11,200,252

The '252 patent discloses a process for selecting an item from a database, referred to as "partial word completion." The core of the invention is an iterative method where the system presents selectable "segments" or parts of item identifiers (e.g., parts of words).

The process can be summarized as:

1. Analyzing the Database: The system analyzes the list of all item identifiers (e.g., contact names, song titles) to find common branching points in their text strings. The text between these branches constitutes a "segment."
2. Presenting Segments: An initial display shows one or more of these segments for selection by the user.
3. Iterative Selection: In response to a user's selection of a segment, the system concatenates it to the user's input string and generates a new display of subsequent segments that logically follow the selected one.
4. Building the Identifier: This process is repeated, allowing the user to build a larger part or the whole of the desired item identifier, thereby narrowing down the search and selecting the final item.

This method is presented as an improvement over character-by-character input or scrolling through long lists, especially on devices with limited input mechanisms like joysticks or D-pads.

4. Prior Art References

The following U.S. patents, which predate the '252 patent's priority date, are relevant to the obviousness analysis:

• U.S. Patent 7,076,738 B2 to Unruh et al. (hereinafter "Unruh")

  • Filing Date: June 28, 2002
  • Disclosure: Unruh discloses a method for incrementally searching a database. As a user enters characters of a search term, the system filters a displayed list of items in real-time to show only those entries that match the input string. This was a common feature in applications like contact lists or file finders. The core concept is filtering a list based on partial text input.

• U.S. Patent 6,219,051 B1 to Levy (hereinafter "Levy")

  • Filing Date: January 22, 1999
  • Disclosure: Levy discloses a system for entering text using a limited directional input device, such as a joystick. The system displays characters or groups of characters arranged in different directions. The user selects a group by moving the joystick, which then reveals the characters within that group for further selection. This teaches a hierarchical, multi-step selection process for text entry on devices without keyboards.

5. Combination of Prior Art and Motivation to Combine

It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Unruh and Levy to arrive at the system claimed in the '252 patent.

Rationale:

The primary motivation would be to improve the usability of an incremental search system on a device with limited input controls.

1. Recognized Problem: Unruh teaches a powerful incremental search feature. A PHOSITA would recognize that the utility of this feature depends on the ease of entering the search text. On devices like mobile phones, PDAs, and especially on emerging devices like smart TVs and gaming consoles (which often use joysticks or directional pads), character-by-character text entry was notoriously slow and cumbersome. The '252 patent itself describes this as a key problem in the field (See '252 Patent, Background of the Invention).

2. Known Solution: Levy provides a well-understood solution to this exact problem: a method for text entry specifically designed for joystick-like controllers. Levy's hierarchical selection method, where users pick from presented groups of characters, was a known alternative to on-screen keyboards for such devices.

3. Predictable Combination: A PHOSITA tasked with implementing Unruh's incremental search on a device controlled by a joystick would naturally look for an input method suitable for that controller. Levy's method is a direct and logical choice. The combination would involve replacing the character-by-character text input of Unruh with the hierarchical group selection mechanism of Levy.

4. Result of the Combination:

   • A user would be presented with initial character groups for selection, as taught by Levy.
   • Upon selecting a group (e.g., "abc"), the system would filter the database list to show only items starting with those letters, as taught by Unruh.
   • The system would then present a new set of selectable characters or character groups to continue building the search term.

This combined system reads directly on the core concept of the '252 patent: "generating an initial display including one or more parts of item identifiers for selection... and in response to selection... generating a display of a further one or more parts for selection... to build a larger part... of an item identifier."

The final step to arrive at the specific embodiment of the '252 patent—where the selectable "segments" are not just arbitrary character groups but are intelligently generated based on the branching structure of the actual data in the database—would have been an obvious optimization. Once the two systems are combined, a PHOSITA would seek to make the process more efficient. Instead of presenting static character groups (as in Levy), it would be a routine design choice to dynamically present character groups that represent the most common next strings in the filtered list of items. This "partial word completion" is a predictable enhancement to improve the speed and accuracy of the combined Unruh-Levy system, as it guides the user down the most likely paths provided by the database itself.

6. Conclusion

The claims of U.S. Patent 11,200,252 are rendered obvious by the combination of Unruh ('738) and Levy ('051). Unruh provides the foundational concept of an incremental database search, and Levy provides a known method for text entry on limited-input devices that, when combined with Unruh, leads directly to the claimed invention. The motivation to combine these references—to improve the user experience of searching on non-keyboard devices—was strong and clear at the time. The specific implementation of using data-derived "segments" would have been a predictable and obvious optimization for a PHOSITA seeking to enhance the efficiency of such a combined system.

Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,200,252: Term, Application History, and Family

Based on a thorough review of USPTO records for U.S. Patent 11,200,252, the following details regarding its term, application history, and related patents have been compiled.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): There is no record of any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) being granted for this patent. PTA is typically awarded to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during patent prosecution. The absence of PTA indicates the patent's term was not extended due to administrative delays.
• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): There is no record of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) for this patent. PTE is typically granted to compensate for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA) and is not applicable in this case.
• Projected Expiration Date: The patent was filed on July 13, 2020, and issued on December 14, 2021. The standard 20-year term for a patent runs from the earliest non-provisional filing date. The application for this patent, 16/927,723, claims priority to a long chain of earlier applications, with the earliest non-provisional filing date being January 3, 2008, from application 11/968,951 (now patent US 8,156,111). Therefore, the original projected expiration date would be January 3, 2028.
• Current Status: As noted in the patent summary, the Google Patents page for US 11,200,252 indicates a status of "Expired - Fee Related." This means that required maintenance fees were not paid, causing the patent to expire prematurely. The anticipated expiration date noted on that page was December 28, 2027, which appears to have been calculated from an earlier priority date in the chain. The controlling date for the 20-year term is the earliest non-provisional filing date, which is January 3, 2008.

Application and Family Data

• Application Number: US 11,200,252 was issued from application number 16/927,723, filed on July 13, 2020.
• Continuity Data: Application 16/927,723 is a continuation of application 16/410,483, filed on May 13, 2019 (now Patent US 10,754,951), which itself is a continuation of a series of prior applications. This establishes a direct lineage and shared priority claim.
• Divisional Applications: No divisional applications have been identified as being filed from the application that resulted in this patent.
• Related Family Members: This patent is part of a large family of U.S. patents and patent applications stemming from the original 2008 application. The "Continuity" data listed on the USPTO's public records shows an extensive chain of continuation applications, indicating a long-running prosecution strategy by the applicant, Kannuu Pty Ltd. All patents in this chain share a common specification and claim priority back to the earliest filing date. The patent family includes, but is not limited to, the direct parent (US 10,754,951) and the grandparent (US 10,296,554), among many others.

Here is the Defensive Disclosure document for U.S. Patent 11,200,252.

---

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation

Title: Systems and Methods for Hierarchical and Context-Aware Item Selection
Publication Date: 2026-05-13
Disclosure ID: D260513-01
Related Art: U.S. Patent 11,200,252

Abstract

This document discloses a series of derivative methods, systems, and applications building upon the core concept of hierarchical item selection through partial identifier completion. These disclosures are intended to enter the public domain as prior art. The disclosed variations explore alternative components and data structures, application to extreme operational parameters, cross-domain implementations, integration with emerging technologies like AI and IoT, and inverse operational modes. The intent is to render obvious any future patent claims on these incremental but foreseeable adaptations of the foundational technology.

---

Derivative Disclosures

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

1.1. Phonetic Segment Selection for Voice-Controlled Systems

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces text-based segments with phonetic ones for use in voice-controlled or hands-free environments. The system's engine pre-processes the database of item identifiers (e.g., contact names, song titles) into their constituent phonemes using a standard phonetic alphabet like ARPABET or IPA. The divergence analysis is performed on these phonetic sequences. The user interface, instead of displaying text, audibly presents the next most likely phonetic segments. For example, to select "Jessica," after the user says "jeh," the system might offer "sih" and "koh" as audible choices, mapped to voice commands like "Select one" and "Select two." The ranking algorithm can be biased by an acoustic model that analyzes the user's accent to prioritize more likely phoneme choices. The input is captured by a far-field microphone array and processed by a speech-to-phoneme converter.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant AUI as Audio UI
      participant Engine
      participant DB as Phonetic Database
  
      User->>+AUI: Initiates selection (e.g., "Find contact")
      AUI->>+Engine: Request initial phoneme segments(num_options=3)
      Engine->>+DB: Query root phoneme branches
      DB-->>-Engine: Returns segments ["/dʒ/ (J)", "/k/", "/l/"] with high frequency
      Engine-->>-AUI: Provides top 3 audible phonemes
      AUI->>-User: Plays sounds: "Say 'Jay', 'Kay', or 'Ell'"
      User->>+AUI: Says "Jay"
      AUI->>+Engine: User selected "/dʒ/"
      Engine->>+DB: Query branches following "/dʒ/"
      DB-->>-Engine: Returns segments ["/ɛ/ (e)", "/oʊ/ (o)"]
      Engine-->>-AUI: Provides next phoneme options
      AUI->>-User: Plays sounds: "Say 'Eh' or 'Oh'"
  

1.2. Haptic Segment Selection for Non-Visual Interfaces

• Enabling Description: This derivative uses distinct haptic patterns as the selectable segments, designed for visually impaired users or for interfaces where a screen is unavailable or unsafe to view (e.g., a motorcycle handlebar controller). The item identifiers in the database are mapped to unique sequences of haptic patterns. The system uses a specialized haptic actuator array (e.g., piezoelectric or eccentric rotating mass motors) to render the patterns. For example, to select the "Navigate Home" function, the first set of options might be a short pulse (for "Navigate"), a long vibration (for "Call"), and two quick taps (for "Media"). After the user selects the short pulse via a button press, the next set of options for destinations ("Home," "Work," "Office") are presented as new, distinct haptic patterns. The physical input device could be a multi-way joystick where each direction is associated with confirming the haptic pattern currently being rendered.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph Haptic Controller
          A[Start Selection] --> B{Render Option Set 1};
          B --> C1["Pattern 1 (e.g., Pulse)"];
          B --> C2["Pattern 2 (e.g., Vibrate)"];
          B --> C3["Pattern 3 (e.g., Taps)"];
      end
  
      subgraph User Input
          D[Multi-way Joystick];
      end
  
      subgraph System Logic
          E[Concatenate Selection];
          F{Render Option Set 2};
          G[Target Item Selected];
      end
  
      C1 -- User Presses Up --> E;
      C2 -- User Presses Down --> E;
      C3 -- User Presses Left --> E;
      D -- User Input --> C1;
      D -- User Input --> C2;
      D -- User Input --> C3;
  
      E --> F;
      F --> G;
  

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

2.1. Nanoscale Genomic Sequence Construction

• Enabling Description: The method is applied to the design and selection of synthetic DNA or guide RNA sequences for CRISPR-based gene editing. The "database" is the entirety of a target genome (e.g., Homo sapiens, GRCh38) and a library of functional genetic elements (promoters, terminators, etc.). The "segments" are not characters, but specific codons, transcription factor binding sites, or short nucleotide sequences (k-mers). A bioinformatician using a specialized GUI selects segments to construct a target sequence. The system's ranking engine prioritizes segments that avoid off-target binding sites (pre-calculated via BLAST against the genome), maintain a desired GC content for thermal stability, and conform to codon optimization tables for a target expression organism. This significantly reduces the design time and error rate for creating new genetic constructs.

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      A(Start gRNA Design) --> B{Select Target Gene};
      B --> C[Analyze Gene for PAM Sites];
      C --> D{Generate Initial Segments};
      D -- Top On-Target Score --> E1["Segment: G.T.A.C (k-mer 1)"];
      D -- 2nd Best Score --> E2["Segment: C.C.G.A (k-mer 2)"];
      E1 -- User Selects --> F{Generate Next Segments};
      F -- Avoids Off-Target --> G1["Segment: T.T.A.G (k-mer 3)"];
      F -- High GC-Content --> G2["Segment: G.C.C.G (k-mer 4)"];
      G1 -- User Selects --> H[Append Segment to Construct];
      H --> I{...Continue until full gRNA sequence is built};
      I --> J[Final Sequence Ready for Synthesis];
  

2.2. High-Frequency Trading (HFT) Strategy Selection

• Enabling Description: In this application, the selection method operates at microsecond latencies to construct and deploy algorithmic trading strategies. The "database" is a library of pre-defined trading "primitives" (e.g., MeanReversion, MomentumIndicator, ArbitragePair). The "segments" are these primitives and their tunable parameters (e.g., lookback_period=50ms, symbol=USD/EUR). A supervisory trading algorithm or human operator uses the interface to assemble a complete trading strategy on the fly in response to changing market conditions. The ranking engine is a real-time system that prioritizes primitives based on current market volatility, liquidity, and correlation matrices. A selection is not made by a human click, but by an automated signal, and the concatenated "identifier" is a fully-formed, executable script that is immediately deployed on a co-located exchange server.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Market as Market Data Feed
      participant Ranking as Real-time Ranking Engine
      participant Selector as Automated Selector
      participant Assembler as Strategy Assembler
      participant Exchange
  
      Market->>Ranking: Tick data (volatility, volume)
      loop Respond to Spike in Volatility
          Ranking->>Selector: Update primitive priorities (boost Momentum)
          Selector->>Assembler: Select segment "MomentumIndicator"
          Assembler->>Selector: Request next segment (parameters)
          Selector->>Assembler: Select segment "lookback=10ms"
          Assembler->>Selector: Request next segment (asset)
          Selector->>Assembler: Select segment "asset=ES_mini"
          Assembler-->>Exchange: Deploy constructed strategy: MomentumIndicator(asset=ES_mini, lookback=10ms)
      end
  

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

3.1. Aerospace: Emergency Procedure Selection in Cockpit

• Enabling Description: This system is integrated into an aircraft's Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) or a primary flight display. The database contains the full Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) of emergency and non-normal procedures, indexed by structured identifiers (e.g., ENG-1-FIRE-SEVERE, HYD-A-FAIL-LEAK). During a high-workload event, the pilot uses a physical control, such as a rotary knob on the instrument panel, to select segments. Rotating the knob cycles through the current segment options, and pressing the knob selects one. The ranking engine is coupled to the aircraft's flight data computer; it automatically prioritizes procedures that match active fault warnings from the Engine-Indicating and Crew-Alerting System (EICAS). For example, if EICAS shows an "L ENG FIRE" warning, the segments "ENG," "1," and "FIRE" are immediately promoted to the top of the selection list.

• Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> EICAS_Alert: EICAS shows "HYD A SYS FAULT"
      EICAS_Alert --> ActiveSelection: Pilot engages selection knob
      ActiveSelection: Display ranked segments: 1. HYD, 2. ENG, 3. ELEC
      ActiveSelection --> Segment1_Selected: Pilot selects "HYD"
      Segment1_Selected: Display ranked segments: 1. A, 2. B, 3. C
      Segment1_Selected --> Segment2_Selected: Pilot selects "A"
      Segment2_Selected: Display ranked segments: 1. FAIL, 2. LEAK, 3. OVHT
      Segment2_Selected --> Procedure_Identified: Pilot selects "FAIL"
      Procedure_Identified: Display full "Hydraulic System A Failure" checklist
      Procedure_Identified --> [*]
  

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

4.1. Generative AI-based Semantic Completion

• Enabling Description: The deterministic, tree-based engine of the original patent is replaced with a fine-tuned, large language model (LLM) like a transformer. The LLM is trained on the database of items and a large corpus of user selection sessions. Instead of finding literal divergence points in strings, the engine generates the most probable next segments based on the semantic meaning of the previously selected segments. This allows for more intuitive and flexible selections. For example, if a user is selecting from a recipe database and has selected the segment "Italian," the system may propose "Pasta," "Risotto," and "Tomato" as the next segments, even if no recipe names begin with "ItalianPasta." The LLM has learned the conceptual relationship. The "entry so far" is a vector embedding, not just a string, allowing for fuzzy and conceptual matching.

• Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph User Interaction
          A[User selects segment "Spicy"]
      end
  
      subgraph Generative Engine
          B[Input: "Spicy"] --> C{Convert to Token Embedding};
          C --> D[LLM Inference];
          D --> E{Generate Probability Distribution over Vocabulary};
          E --> F[Sample Top-K Next Segments];
      end
  
      subgraph UI Display
          G[Display Segment: "Taco"]
          H[Display Segment: "Curry"]
          I[Display Segment: "Chili"]
      end
  
      A --> C;
      F --> G;
      F --> H;
      F --> I;
  

4.2. IoT-Modulated Prioritization for Predictive Maintenance

• Enabling Description: The system is used by a field technician to access maintenance procedures for industrial equipment on a ruggedized tablet. A network of IoT sensors (vibration, thermal, acoustic) is attached to the machinery. The sensor data streams to a cloud-based analytics platform that runs a predictive failure model. The ranking of the selectable segments in the technician's partial word completion interface is dynamically modulated by the output of this model. If sensors on Pump-7B indicate anomalous high-frequency vibrations, the failure model will increase the priority score for any maintenance procedure containing the identifiers "Pump-7B," "bearing," "seal," or "impeller." When the technician begins a search, these contextually relevant segments are presented first, drastically reducing the time to find the correct troubleshooting guide.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant IoT_Sensor as IoT Sensor (Pump-7B)
      participant Analytics as Cloud Analytics Platform
      participant PWC_Engine as PWC Ranking Engine
      participant Technician as Technician's Tablet
  
      loop Real-time Monitoring
          IoT_Sensor->>+Analytics: Vibration telemetry data
          Analytics->>Analytics: Predictive model detects bearing wear signature
          Analytics->>+PWC_Engine: Send priority boost: {item: "bearing", device: "Pump-7B", score: +50}
      end
      Technician->>+PWC_Engine: Initiate search
      PWC_Engine-->>-Technician: Display initial segments ( "bearing" is now #1)
      Technician->>PWC_Engine: Selects "bearing"
      PWC_Engine-->>-Technician: Display next segments ("Pump-7B" is now #1)
  

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

5.1. Ambiguity-Prioritizing "Discovery Mode"

• Enabling Description: This variation inverts the primary goal from rapid convergence to guided exploration. It is designed for users who are browsing or are unsure of the specific item they need. When presenting the next set of selectable segments, the ranking algorithm prioritizes segments that lead to the most diverse or largest remaining sets of items. The UI is modified to display not just the segment string, but also a "result count" for the branch that segment opens. For example, when searching a music library, after selecting "Rock," the system might display "Classic [5,300 items]," "Alternative [2,100 items]," and "Progressive [450 items]." This allows the user to understand the structure of the database and make informed decisions to either narrow the search or explore a broad category. This mode is explicitly selectable by the user (e.g., via a "Search vs. Discover" toggle).

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      A(Start Discovery) --> B{Select Genre};
      B -- User Selects --> C(Electronic);
      C --> D{Render Next Segments by Result Count};
      D --> E["House [7201 items]"];
      D --> F["Trance [4880 items]"];
      D --> G["Ambient [1230 items]"];
      D --> H["Dubstep [950 items]"];
      E -- User wants to explore a large sub-genre --> I{Select Sub-Genre};
      I --> J["Deep House [3105 items]"];
      I --> K["Progressive House [2500 items]"];
  

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

1. Combination with WAI-ARIA Standard

• Disclosure: A method for selecting an item from a database, wherein the user interface presenting selectable segments is implemented as a web component conforming to the W3C WAI-ARIA 1.2 standard. The selection container has a role of listbox, and each selectable text segment is an element with a role of option. The currently focused-on option is indicated via the aria-activedescendant property of the listbox, and user selection updates the aria-selected state of the chosen option. This implementation ensures the selection mechanism is fully operable via assistive technologies like screen readers, making the application of web accessibility standards to this method obvious.

2. Combination with MQTT Open Standard

• Disclosure: A distributed system for selecting an item, wherein the interface component and the engine component communicate via the ISO/IEC 20922 standard MQTT protocol. The user's selection of a segment on a client device causes the device to publish a message containing the "entry so far" to a shared MQTT topic (e.g., kannuu/query). A server-side engine, subscribed to that topic, processes the query and publishes the next set of ranked segments to a response topic (e.g., kannuu/response/[clientID]). This architecture demonstrates the obvious use of a standard lightweight messaging protocol to enable the patented method in a distributed or IoT environment.

3. Combination with Unicode CLDR Standard

• Disclosure: A process for selecting an item from a database containing items in multiple languages, wherein the initial step of analyzing item identifiers to create segments is performed according to the locale-specific word boundary rules defined in the Unicode Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR). For a database of Thai song titles, the engine uses the CLDR's Thai segmentation dictionary to correctly identify word-based segments despite the absence of spaces. For German, it can use CLDR's rules to identify meaningful sub-components in long compound words. This makes the adaptation of the segmentation logic to be linguistically correct using open-source internationalization standards an obvious extension.