Multi-dimensional Search Result Interface for Legal and Medical Research

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current database search systems face challenges in efficiently presenting and navigating large amounts of potentially relevant information, as existing sorting algorithms and interfaces often obscure important details and fail to intuitively convey the relevance and authority of search results, particularly in fields like legal and medical research, where multiple dimensions of information are crucial.

Innovation Solution

A graphic user interface that displays search results in multiple dimensions, allowing users to selectively view and manipulate information, including relevance, chronology, and authoritativeness, while suppressing non-essential data to facilitate rapid review and ordering of results, using a two-dimensional display with additional metadata dimensions and graphical indicia to represent citations and relationships.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the search query is made broad to ensure all highly germane information is included, then the completeness of search results is improved, but the number of search results becomes quite numerous making it difficult to identify relevant information

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompleteness of search resultsVSAvoidease of identifying relevant information
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the large set of search results into multiple sorted lists based on different sorting criteria (e.g., relevance, date, author). This allows users to divide the overwhelming number of results into manageable groups, each organized by a specific dimension, making it easier to identify relevant information while maintaining comprehensive coverage through multiple sorting perspectives.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces multiple sorting dimensions beyond simple relevance ranking. Users can sort results by various criteria such as date, author, document type, or custom parameters. This adds dimensional organization to the search results, transforming a flat list into a multi-dimensional structure that facilitates easier navigation and identification of relevant information within the comprehensive result set.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Ease of operation

If sorting algorithms are used to rank search results by relevance, then the ease of identifying relevant information is improved, but important details may be obscured and the complexity of the sorting system increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of identifying relevant informationVSAvoidcomplexity of sorting system
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic sorting where users can interactively change sorting criteria and parameters. The sorting system is not fixed but adapts to user needs, allowing switching between different sorting dimensions and customization of sort order. This dynamic approach simplifies the user experience by providing flexible, on-demand sorting rather than a complex predetermined sorting system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent incorporates feedback mechanisms where users can review sorted results and adjust sorting parameters based on what they find. The system responds to user interactions by re-sorting results according to new criteria. This feedback loop allows users to guide the sorting process, reducing the need for complex pre-programmed sorting logic while maintaining ease of information identification.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Reliability

If multiple dimensions of information are displayed to convey relevance and authority, then the reliability of search result evaluation is improved, but the complexity of the interface increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of relevance evaluationVSAvoidcomplexity of interface
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by displaying different types of information in different areas of the interface. Rather than uniformly presenting all dimensions for all results, the interface provides context-specific information where most useful. For example, authority indicators may be prominently displayed for certain document types, while relevance metrics are emphasized for others. This localized presentation maintains reliability without uniformly increasing interface complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses visual dimensions such as color coding, iconography, and spatial arrangement to represent multiple information dimensions. Instead of adding more text or numerical data that would increase interface complexity, the system maps additional information dimensions to visual properties. This allows accurate relevance evaluation through multiple dimensions while maintaining a clean, manageable interface through visual encoding.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentUS20230267127A1Interface including graphic representation of relationships between search results
Publication Date: 2023.08.24 FASTCASE
  • US20230267127A1 patent drawing
  • US20230267127A1 patent drawing
  • US20230267127A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A multi-dimensional graphic user interface displays selected types of information regarding items included in one or more databases or returned by a search in accordance with locations on a two-dimensional display area or projection of a three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional area and provides for selective display of information about respective items in a database (e.g. metadata) as additional dimensions of the display which may be suppressed and/or selectively introduced to avoid user distraction or obscuring information or for comparison between screens which may indicate to a user the degree to which a particular item may or may not be germane to an issue or particular subject matter of interest. The graphic user interface thus provides an effective tool for evaluating search results and organizing detailed review thereof.