Patent Grant
11050704
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/782,642, filed on Oct. 12, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,346,449 and titled “Predicting Performance of Content and Electronic Messages among a System of Networked Computing Devices,” this application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/782,653, filed on Oct. 12, 2017, and titled “Optimizing Effectiveness of Content in Electronic Messages among a System of Networked Computing Devices,” both of which are herein incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
Various embodiments relate generally to data science and data analysis, computer software and systems, and control systems to provide a platform to facilitate implementation of an interface, and, more specifically, to a computing and data storage platform that implements specialized logic to enhance speed and distribution of content in electronic messages as a function, for example, modifiable portions of the content.
Advances in computing hardware and software have fueled exponential growth in delivery of vast amounts of information due to increased improvements in computational and networking technologies and infrastructure. Also, advances in conventional data storage technologies provide an ability to store increasing amounts of generated data. Thus, improvements, in computing hardware, software, network services, and storage have bolstered growth of Internet-based messaging applications, especially in an area of generating and sending information regarding availability of products and services. Unfortunately, such technological improvements have contributed to a deluge of information that is so voluminous that any particular message may be drowned out in the sea of information. Consequently, a number of conventional techniques have been employed to target certain recipients of the information so as to hopefully increase interest and readership of such information.
In accordance with some conventional techniques, creators of content and information, such as merchants and sellers of products or services, have employed various known techniques to target specific groups of people that may be likely to respond or consume a particular set of information. These known techniques, while functional, suffer a number of other drawbacks.
The above-described advancements in computing hardware and software have given rise to a myriad of communication channels through which information may be transmitted to the masses. For example, information may be transmitted via messages through email, text messages, website posts, social networking, and the like. As such, traditional approaches to communicate information have been generally focused on transmitting information coarsely, with attempts to focus transmission of information to a certain number of possible consumers of interest. However, conventional approaches to leverage social media to reach particular audiences (e.g., microsegments) have been suboptimal in securing participation in consuming information that, for example, will likely lead to a conversion (e.g., a product purchase). While functional, such approaches suffer a number of other drawbacks.
For example, various conventional approaches by which to identify a particular recipient of information are generally vulnerable to less precise identification of, for example, a particular recipient's engagement with such information. Consequently, traditional electronic message propagation techniques are typically less effective in communicating to a broadest group of potentially interested consumers of such information.
Thus, what is needed is a solution for facilitating techniques to enhance speed and distribution of content in electronic messages, without the limitations of conventional techniques.
Various embodiments or examples (“examples”) of the invention are disclosed in the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings:
Various embodiments or examples may be implemented in numerous ways, including as a system, a process, an apparatus, a user interface, or a series of program instructions on a computer readable medium such as a computer readable storage medium or a computer network where the program instructions are sent over optical, electronic, or wireless communication links. In general, operations of disclosed processes may be performed in an arbitrary order, unless otherwise provided in the claims.
A detailed description of one or more examples is provided below along with accompanying figures. The detailed description is provided in connection with such examples, but is not limited to any particular example. The scope is limited only by the claims, and numerous alternatives, modifications, and equivalents thereof. Numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding. These details are provided for the purpose of example and the described techniques may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the examples has not been described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the description.
Diagram 100 depicts a message generation system 150 including a user interface 120 and a computing device 130 (e.g., one or more servers, including one or more processors and/or memory devices), both of which may be configured to generate messages that may be configured for users 108a, 108b, 108c, and 108d. Users 108a and 108b may interact via computing devices 109a and 109b with message network computing systems 110a and 110b, respectively, whereas users 108c and 108d may interact via computing devices 109c and 109d with content source computing systems 113a and 113b, respectively. Any one or more of message network computing systems 110a and 110b may be configured to receive electronic messages, regardless of the context, for propagating (e.g., sharing), commenting, and consumption by any number of users for any reason, according to some examples. One or more of message network computing systems 110a and 110b may be configured to distribute electronic message content in any form in any digital media or channel. In various examples, message network computing systems 110a and 110b may include any number of computing systems configured to propagate electronic messaging, including, but not limited to, computing systems including third party servers, such as third parties like Facebook™, Twitter™, LinkedIn™, Instagram™, Snapchat™, as well as other private or public social networks to provide social-media related informational data exchange services. In some examples, message generation system 150 configured to enhance speed and distribution of content from any source of digital content. As such, users 108a and 108b may interact via computing devices 109a and 109b with message network computing systems 110a and 110b, respectively, whereas users 108c and 108d may interact via computing devices 109c and 109d with content source computing systems 113a and 113b, respectively. Computing systems 113a and 113b may be configured to provide any type of digital content, such as email, text messaging (e.g., via SMS messages), web pages, audio, video (e.g., YouTube™), etc.
According to some examples, message network computing systems 110a and 110b may include applications or executable instructions configured to principally facilitate interactions (e.g., social interactions) amongst one or more persons, one or more subpopulations (e.g., private groups or public groups), or the public at-large. Examples of message network computing systems 110a and 110b include the above-mentioned Facebook™, Twitter™, LinkedIn™, Instagram™, and Snapchat™, as well as YouTube™, Pinterest™, Tumblr™, WhatsApp™ messaging, or any other platform configured to promote sharing of content, such as videos, audio, or images, as well as sharing ideas, thoughts, etc. in a socially-based environment. According to some examples, content source computing systems 113a and 113b may include applications or executable instructions configured to principally promote an activity, such as a sports television network, a profession sports team (e.g., a National Basketball Association, or NBA®, team), a news or media organization, a product producing or selling organization, and the like. Content source computing systems 113a and 113b may implement websites, email, chatbots, or any other digital communication channels, and may further implement electronic accounts to convey information via message network computing systems 110a and 110b.
In view of the structures and/or functionalities of message network computing systems 110a and 110b and content source computing systems 113a and 113b, an electronic message may include a “tweet” (e.g., a message via a Twitter™ computing system), a “post” (e.g., a message via a Facebook™ computing system), or any other type of social network-based messages, along with any related functionalities, such as forwarding a message (e.g., “retweeting” via Twitter™), sharing a message, associating an endorsement of another message (e.g., “liking” a message, such as a Tweet™, or sharing a Facebook™ post, etc.), and any other interaction that may cause increased rates of transmissions, or may cause increased multiplicity of initiating parallel transmissions (e.g., via a “retweet” of a user having a relatively large number of followers). According to various examples, an electronic message can include any type of digital messaging that can be transmitted over any digital networks.
According to some embodiments, message generation system 150 may be configured to facilitate modification of an electronic message (e.g., its contents) to enhance a speed and/or a rate of propagation at which the message may be conveyed in accordance with, for example, a value of a performance metric. According to various examples, a value of a performance metric may include data representing a value of an engagement metric, an impression metric, a link activation metric (e.g., “a click-through”), a shared message indication metric, a follower account indication metric, etc., or any other like metric or performance attribute that may be monitored and adjusted (e.g., indirectly by modifying content) to conform transmission of an electronic message to one or more performance criteria.
Message generation system 150 is shown to include a computing device 120 and display configured to generate a user interface, such as a message generation interface 122. Message generation system 150 also includes a server computing device 130, which may include hardware and software, or a combination thereof, configured to implement an electronic message performance management platform 160 (or “performance management platform 160”), according to various examples. Performance management platform 160 may include a message generator 162 configured to generate electronic messages configured to urge or cause a targeted rate of transmission and/or multiplicity of propagation (e.g. a rate of parallel transmissions) for an electronic message responsive, for example, to interactions with the message by recipient computing devices 109a, 109b, 109c, and 109d (e.g., by recipient users 108a, 108b, 108c, and 108d). Performance management platform 160 may also include a performance metric adjuster 164 configured to adjust one or more portions or components of an electronic message being generated at message generator 162 so that the generated electronic message may achieve (or attempt to achieve) certain levels of performance as defined, for example, by one or more performance metric criteria.
To illustrate a functionality of performance management platform 160, consider an example in which a user generates an electronic message 124 via message generation interface 122 for transmission to one or more similar or different computing systems 110a, 110b, 113a, and 113b. As shown, a user may interact with computing device 120 to generate an electronic message 124. Prior to transmission, performance management platform 160 includes logic configure to analyze and evaluate electronic message 124 to adjust one or more portions, such as portion 125, to enhance the rate of transmission, propagation, or any other performance metric. In this example, the term “men” in an electronic message 124 is identified by performance management platform 160 as having a performance metric value of “0.250,” as shown in graphical representation 127. Optionally, a user may cause a selection device 126 to hover over or select a graphical representation of portion 125. In response, one or more message performance actions 123 may be presented to the user. Here, at least one message performance action 123 includes a recommendation to replace the term “men,” having a performance metric value of “0.250,” with another term “persons” having a performance metric value of “1.100” as shown in graphical representation 127. Note that the magnitude of the performance metric value of “persons” is greater than that for the term “men.” Thus, an electronic message implement the term “persons” may be predicted to perform better than if the term “men” was included.
In at least one example, the performance metric values of 0.250 and 1.100 may represent a degree or amount of “engagement.” “Engagement” may be described, at least in some non-limiting examples, as an amount of interaction with an electronic message. Data representing an engagement metric may specify an amount of interaction with an electronic message. A value of an engagement metric value may be indicative of whether an electronic message is accessed (e.g., opened or viewed), and whether any one or more interactions with the electronic message are identified (e.g., generation of another electronic message responsive to an initial message). Hence, a user may desire to increase engagement by selecting to replace via user input 129 the term “men” with the term “persons.” With increased values of an engagement metric, the electronic message may be predicted to have greater amounts of interaction than otherwise might be the case.
Other performance metrics and associated values may also be implemented to gauge whether electronic message 124 may achieve a user's objectives (e.g., a marketer or any other function), and to modify or adjust electronic message 124 to meet a subset of performance criteria (e.g., to meet an engagement of value “E” for a period of time “T”). For example, electronic message 124, as well as one or more components thereof, may be generated in accordance with another performance metric, such as an impression metric. An “impression” may be described, at least in some non-limiting examples, as an instance in which an electronic message is presented to a recipient (e.g., regardless whether the recipient interacts with the message). A performance metric may include a “link activation,” which may be described, at least in some non-limiting examples, as an instance in which a link (e.g., a hypertext link) in an electronic message is activated. An example of a link activation is a “click-through,” among other message-related metrics or parameters with which to measure one or more levels of performance of an electronic message, such as a Twitter post relating to a product promotion and campaign. A performance metric may include a “shared” message, which may be described, at least in some non-limiting examples, as an instance in which a recipient 108a, 108b, 108c, or 108d re-transmits (e.g., “retweets”) an electronic message to one or more other users, thereby propagating the message with multiplicity. A performance metric may include a “followed message” status, which may be described as an instance in which recipients 108a, 108b, 108c, or 108d may receive the electronic message based on a “following” relationship to the original recipient. According to various embodiments, other performance metrics may be implemented in message generation system 150.
Diagram 100 further depicts performance management platform 160 being coupled to memory or any type of data storage, such as data repositories 142, 144, and 146, among others. User account message data 142 may be configured to store any number of electronic messages 124 generated or transmitted by performance management platform 160. For example, performance management platform 160 may be configured to store electronic message 124 (e.g., as historic archival data). Also, performance management platform 160 may be configured to determine characteristics or attributes of one or more components of an electronic message (e.g., as a published messages). According to some examples, a component of an electronic message may include a word, a phrase, a topic, or any message attribute, which can describe the component. For example, a message attribute may include metadata that describes, for example, a language associated with the word, or any other descriptor, such as a synonym, a language, a reading level, a geographic location, and the like. Message attributes may also include values of one or more performance metrics (e.g., one or more values of engagement, impressions, etc.), whereby, at least in some cases, a value of a performance metric may be a function of context during which an electronic message is published (e.g., time of day, day of week, types of events occurring locally, nationally, or internationally, the demographics of recipients 108a, 108b, 108c, and 108d, etc.). Components of messages may be tagged or otherwise associated with any of the above-described metadata.
Further, performance management platform 160 may be configured to analyze a subset of electronic message (e.g., including a quantity of 50 or more messages) that may include or otherwise be associated with a component, such as the word “men,” which is depicted in the example of diagram 100. Performance management platform 160 may include logic to analyze various levels of performance based on the usage of the term “men” in previous posts. Likewise, performance management platform 160 may determine a level of performance for the usage of the term “persons” in past posts or electronic messages. In this example, performance management platform 160 may determine that inclusion of the term “persons” may provide an engagement value of +1.100, whereas the term “men” may provide an engagement value of +0.250. As “persons” may be viewed as a synonym (or as a suitable substitute) for “men,” message generator 162 may (e.g., automatically, in some cases) replace the term “men” with the term “persons” so as to increase a level of engagement by a predicted amount (e.g., the difference between +1.100 and +0.250).
Similarly, performance management platform 160 may be configured to receive data 174 (e.g., electronic messages, posts, webpages, emails, etc.) from any number of platforms 110a, 110b, 113a, and 113b to determine components and corresponding characteristics or attributes that may be used by entities external to message generation system 150. Performance management platform 160 also may be configured to analyze and characterize one or more levels of performance for message components in data 174 (e.g., electronic messages generated by platforms 110a, 110b, 113a, and 113b). Thus, components derived from data 174 may be characterized with respect to a performance metric (e.g., a value of engagement), and may be stored in aggregated message data repository 144. Continuing with the example of diagram 100, engagement values of +1.100 and +0.250 (or portions thereof) may be derived based on either user account message data in repository 142 or aggregate message data in repository 144, or a combination thereof. According to some examples, performance metric criteria and any other data may be stored in performance data repository 146, including data representing one or more performance curves. A performance curve, at least in some non-limiting examples, may include data representing a performance metric (e.g., a number of impressions) as a function of time, or any other performance metric or contextual parameter.
To illustrate operation of performance management platform 160, consider that performance management platform 160 may receive data signals 170 (e.g., from a user interface associated with computing device 120) to cause formation of an electronic message 124. Message generator 162 may be configured to identify one or more performance metric values, such as one or more engagement values, assigned to one or more portions (or components, such as the word “men”) of electronic message 124. Further, performance metric adjuster 164 may be configured to determine an equivalent to a portion of electronic message 124 to enhance a performance metric value. Here, performance metric adjuster 164 may be configured to determine a word or term “persons” is equivalent (e.g., as a synonym) to “men,” and may be further configured to substitute the equivalent (e.g., equivalent word) in place of a message portion to form an adapted electronic message 172. Thereafter, adapted electronic message 172 may be published (e.g., transmitted) in accordance with, for example, a scheduled point in time. According to various examples, message generator 162 is configured to generate various formatted versions of adapted electronic message 172, whereby each formatted version may be compatible with a particular platform (e.g., social networking platform). Thus, adaptive electronic message 172 can be transmitted via a network 111 for presentation on user interfaces on a plurality of computing devices 109a, 109b, 109c, and 109d. Also, message generator 162 may be configured to format various data for graphically presenting information and content of electronic message 124 on a user interface of computing device 120.
According to some examples, performance management platform 160 may be further configured to implement a performance analyzer 166 and a publishing optimizer 164. Performance analyzer 166 may be configured to perform an analysis on one or more components of a message prior to publishing so as to determine whether one or more components of the message comply with one or more performance metric criteria. Further, performance analyzer 166 may be configured to identify one or more component characteristics or attributes that may be modified so as to allow an electronic message to comply one or more performance criteria. According to some examples, performance analyzer 166 may be configured to analyze various amounts of message data from various data sources to identify patterns (e.g., of microsegments) of message recipients at granular levels so as to identify individual users or a subpopulation of users.
Publishing optimizer 168 may be configured to determine an effectiveness of an electronic message relative to one or more performance metrics and time. In some examples, publishing optimizer 168 may monitor values of a performance metric against a performance criterion to determine when an effectiveness of an electronic message is decreasing or has reached a particular value. Responsive to determining reduced effectiveness, publishing optimizer 168 may be configured to implement another electronic message.
Data collector 230 is configured to detect and parse the various components of an electronic message, and further is configured to analyze the characteristics or attributes of each component, as well as to characterize a performance metric of a component (e.g., an amount of engagement for a component). Natural language processor 232 may be configured to parse (e.g., using word stemming, etc.) portions of an electronic message to identify components, such as a word or a phrase. Also, natural language processor 232 may be configured to derive or characterize a message as being directed to a particular topic based on, for example, known sentiment analysis techniques, known content-based classification techniques, and the like. In some examples, natural language processor 232 may be configured to apply word embedding techniques in which components of an electronic message may be represented as a vector of numbers. As shown, natural language processor 232 includes a synonym generator 236 configured to identify synonyms or any other suitably compatible terms for one or more words in an electronic message being generated (e.g., prior to publication). For example, synonym generator 236 may be configured to identify the term “U.S.A.” as a synonym, or suitable substitution, for the term “America.” In at least one example, synonym generator 236 may be configured to compare two or more components (e.g., two or more words and corresponding vectors) to determine a degree to which at least two components may be similar, and, thus may be used as synonyms. A degree of similarity between two words may be derived by determining, for example, a cosine similarity between respective vectors of the words. Note that synonym generator 236 may determine substitutable words based on hierarchical relationships (e.g., substituting the word “China” for the word “Beijing”), genus-species relationships, or any other relationships among similar or compatible words or components.
Analyzer 234 may be configured to characterize various components to identify characteristics or attributes related to a component, and may further be configured to characterize a level of performance for one or more performance metrics. Analyzer 234 includes a message component attribute determinator 235 and a performance metric value characterizer 237, according to the example shown. Message component attribute determinator 235 may be configured to identify characteristics or attributes, such as message attribute data 203, for a word, phrase, topic, etc. In various examples, message attribute data 203 may be appended, linked, tagged, or otherwise associated with a component to enrich data in, for example, user account message data repository 242 and aggregate message data repository 244. A synonym may be a characteristic or an attribute of a message component. Examples of message attribute data 203 are depicted as classification data 203a (e.g., an attribute specifying whether a component may be classified as one or more of a word, phrase, or topic), media type data 203b (e.g., an attribute specifying whether a component may be classified as being associated with an email, a post, a webpage, a text message, etc.), channel type data 203c (e.g., an attribute specifying whether a component may be associated with a type of social networking system, such as Twitter). Other metadata 203d may be associated with, or tagged to, a word or other message component. As such, other metadata 203d may include a tag representing a language in which the word is used (e.g., a tag indicating English, German, Mandarin, etc.). Other metadata 203d may include a tag representing a context in which a word is used in one or more electronic messages, such as in the context of message purpose (e.g., a tag indicating a marketing campaign, or the like), an industry or activity (e.g., a tag indicating an electronic message component relating to autonomous vehicle technology, or basketball), etc. In some cases, other metadata 203d may include data representing computed values of one or more performance metrics (e.g., a tag indicating values of an amount of engagement, etc.) as characterized by performance metric value characterizer 237.
Performance metric value characterizer 237 may be configured to evaluate a components and corresponding characteristics or attributes to characterize a value associated with the performance metric. For example, a value of engagement as a performance metric may be computed as a number of interactions, including different types of interactions (e.g., different user input signals). Each interaction may relate to a particular user input, such as forwarding a message (e.g., select a “retweet” input in association with a Twitter social messaging computing system), activating a link, specifying a favorable response (e.g., select a “like” input), and the like. As another example, a value of engagement may be computed as a number of interactions per unit time, per number of electronic message accesses (e.g., impressions), or any other parameter. Values of engagement may be determined in any way based on message interactions. Further, performance metric value characterizer 237 may be configured to compute impressions, reach, click-throughs, a number of times a message is forwarded, etc. According to various examples, performance metric value characterizer 237 may be configured to analyze a corpus of electronic messages stored in repositories 242 and 244 to derive one or more of the above-mentioned performance metrics for each of a subset of words or other components.
Diagram 200 further depicts performance management platform 260 including a message generator 262 configured to generate messages, and a performance metric adjuster 264 configured to adjust or modify a value of a performance metric by, for example, replacing a component in exchange, for example, with another component (e.g., a synonym) having a greater value for the performance metric. According to some examples, performance data repository 246 may include various sets of performance criteria with which to guide formation of an electronic message. For example, a component of an electronic message being generated may be associated with a value that is predicted to be noncompliant with at least one performance criterion (e.g., a certain desired level of performance over a period of time). Thus, performance metric adjuster 264 may be configured to identify one or more actions that may adapt the electronic message so as to conform to the performance criteria. For example, a subset of performance criteria may be selected to evaluate generation of electronic message, whereby the subset of performance criteria may specify that a relatively high engagement value is a goal to attain within a relatively short window of time. In this case, a user (e.g., a marketer) may be interested in a quick spike in engagement followed by another electronic message. Thus, a sustainable engagement rate over a longer period of time may not be desired. Consequently, performance metric adjuster 264 may identify, for example, synonyms that have been characterized as having performance levels that may conform to the desired performance criteria (i.e., a relatively high engagement value to be obtained within a relatively short window of time). Some synonyms, such as those associated with moderate engagement values that sustain over longer periods of time, may be excluded for implementation in this example.
Publication transmitter 266 may be configured to generate any number of platform-specific electronic messages based on an adapted electronic message. Thus, publication transmitter 266 may generate an electronic message or content formatted as, for example, a “tweet,” a Facebook™ post, a web page update, an email, etc.
In the example shown, message generator 362 generates a graphic representation (“+1.224%”) 312 indicative of a level of performance associated with a term (“TourdeFrance”) 310. In this example, the values of engagement are depicted as values of a performance metric. Similarly, message generator 362 generates graphic representation (“+0.600%”) 316 indicative of a level of performance associated with a word (“Kaneolli”) 314, graphic representation (“−0.110%”) 324 indicative of a level of performance associated with a word (“race”) 322, graphic representation (“−0.305%”) 328 indicative of a level of performance associated with a word (“shirt”) 326, and graphic representation (“−0.250%”) 320 indicative of a level of performance associated with a word (“BMX”) 318. Hence, words 310 and 314 predictively may enhance engagement for electronic message 304, whereas words 318, 322, and 326 may degrade or impair engagement of the message. Graphic representations 312, 316, 328, and 320 may be examples of visual indicators, according to some implementations.
As for predicted low-performing words 318, 322, and 326, diagram 300 depicts an arrangement 360 of equivalent terms and corresponding performance metrics that may be used to replace one or more of words 318, 322, and 326. In some examples, arrangement 360 may be a data structure stored in, for example, a performance data repository 146 of
In some cases, arrangement 360 may be displayed as a portion of message generation interface 302. As shown, lower performing words 318, 322, and 326 may be included as terms 361 in respective rows 370, 372, and 374. Engagement values depicted in graphical representations 320, 324, and 328 are also shown as including as engagement values 363 in arrangement 360. Alternate equivalent terms 365, such as “Tour de France,” “mountain,” and “jersey,” are shown to be associated with respective engagement values 367, such as +1.224%, +0.375%, and +0.875%. As the term “jersey” is associated with a greater engagement value than the term “shirt,” the term jersey may be substituted to replace the term shirt in electronic message 304 to enhance performance of the message predictively.
In this example, representation 402 depicts at least categories of terms, which may be implemented as attributes, based on frequency 450 of mentioned terms and corresponding engagement rates 410. A first grouping 420 of terms includes message components having relatively effective (e.g., higher) engagement values, and have fewest numbers of mentions (e.g., used least in electronic messages). Grouping 420 includes terms “Tour de France” 422 and “jersey” 424. With fewest usages, performance metric adjuster 464 may be configured to automatically implement these terms to enhance engagement of electronic messages with these terms. A second grouping 430 of terms includes message components having moderately effective engagement values, and have moderate numbers of mentions (e.g., used moderately in electronic messages). Grouping 430 includes terms “touring” 432 and “mountain” 434. With moderate usages, performance metric adjuster 464 may be configured to automatically continue to implement these terms to continue sustaining engagement of electronic messages with these terms. A third grouping 440 of terms includes message components having least effective engagement values, and these terms have a range of numbers of mentions in electronic messages. Grouping 440 includes terms “shirt” 442 and “BMX” 444. In some examples, performance metric adjuster 464 may be configured to automatically deemphasize usage of these terms to reduce risks of encumbering the enhancement of engagement values for the electronic messages. By analyzing language patterns expressed representation 402, users (e.g., marketers) can test different tactics to monitor responses of using particular words or message components.
Data arrangement 520 depicts increasing values of engagement 523 for term 521 from geolocations 525 ranging from Fargo, N. Dak. (e.g., in geographic regions 508) to Miami, Fla. (e.g., in geographic regions 510), and Miami Fla. to Los Angeles Calif. (e.g., in geographic regions 512). In some cases, performance metric adjuster 564 may use the term “Tour de France” in row 528 when an electronic message is configured to target recipients in Los Angeles. However, an equivalent term “race” in row 529 may yield greater engagement values when used in electronic messages targeted to recipients in Fargo, N. Dak., rather than using the term “Tour de France” in row 524. As such, performance metric adjuster 564 may be configured to automatically implement the term “race” when propagating electronic message to North Dakota rather than using terms and corresponding engagement values in rows 524, 526, and 528.
According to the example shown in data arrangement 620, terms 621 in rows 622, 624, and 626 may have corresponding complexity values 623, such as “5,” “6,” and “7,” whereas alternate terms 625 may have corresponding complexity values 627 (e.g., “12,” “8,” and “13”). Note that a complexity level of a message component, such as a word, may relate to a reading level based on, for example, the Gunning Fog Index, which is an approach for estimating a number of years of formal education. Other techniques for describing a level complexity beyond the Gunning Fog Index may be used in various implementations. According to some examples, logic in an electronic message performance management platform may be configured to analyze content of a sample of electronic messages of a subpopulation of recipients to determine one or more reading levels. The subpopulation of recipients that are most likely to be responsive to a generated electronic message may be at least one group to target. As such, performance metric adjuster 664 may be configured to substitute out, for example, the word “Tour de France” having a reading level (or level of complexity) of “12,” whereas a targeted subpopulation of recipients may be described as having a reading level of “7.” Thus, the term “race,” which is associated with a reading level of “5” may be more appropriate and comprehendible by recipients associated with a reading level of 7.
In one example, logic in an electronic message performance management platform may be configured to characterize a word as a portion of the electronic message to form a characterized word including a characteristic. In some examples, a characteristic may include a level of complexity for a word (e.g., “Tour de France”), the level of complexity being indicative of a reading level. Hence, the logic may be configured to identify a reading level associated with a subpopulation of recipient computing devices of an electronic message, and to identify another word (e.g., “race”) having a different level of complexity (e.g., a lower level) relative to the level of complexity for the word “Tour de France.” Then, the logic may be configured to embed word “race” into the electronic message to form an adapted electronic message for a targeted subpopulation of recipient computing devices.
In the example shown, data arrangement 720 includes a subset of terms 721 corresponding to performance metric values 723 for a first targeted subpopulation, whereas another subset of alternate terms 725 correspond to performance metric values 725 for a second targeted subpopulation. According to various examples, the two targeted subpopulations may differ from each other by demographics, purchasing behaviors, incomes, or any other characteristic. A set of performance criteria may define how best to generate electronic messages for optimizing engagement based on the subpopulation. Consequently, performance metric adjuster 764 may be configured to modify or adapt a word of an electronic message so as to more precisely generate electronic messages that may yield a predictive amount of engagement or other performance metrics. In at least one case, identifying subpopulation-dependent components may facilitate the enhancement of values of a performance metric to increase levels of engagement.
Analyzer 934 may be configured to data mine and analyze relatively large number of datasets with hundreds, thousands, millions, etc. of data points having multiple dimensions and attributes. Further, analyzer 934 may be configured to correlate one or more attributes to one or more performance metric values so that implementation of a component of an electronic message may be predicted to cause a predicted level of performance, according to some examples. For example, analyzer 934 may be configured to identify a subset of terms that may be used, as synonyms, to replace a word to predictably increase or enhance a performance metric value of a word as well as an electronic message including the word.
Component characterizer 972 may be configured to receive data 907 representing a proposed electronic message and data 901a representing electronic messages and any other selected source of data from which components (e.g., words, phrases, topics, etc.) of one or more subsets of electronic messages (e.g., published messages) may be extracted and characterized. In some examples, component characterizer 972 may be configured to identify attributes with that may be characterized to determine values, qualities, or characteristics of an attribute. For instance, component characterizer 972 may determine attributes or characteristic that may include a word, a phrase, a topic, or any message attribute, which can describe the component. A message attribute may include metadata that describes, for example, a language associated with the word (e.g., a word is in Spanish), or any other descriptor, such as a synonym, a language, a reading level (e.g., a level of complexity), a geographic location, and the like. Message attributes may also include values of one or more performance metrics (e.g., one or more values of engagement, impressions, etc.). In some examples, component characterizer 972 may implement at least structural and/or functional portions of a message component attribute determinator 235 of
Performance curve generator 974 may be configured to statistically analyze components and attributes of electronic messages to identify predictive relationships between, for example, an attribute and a predictive performance metric value. In this example, a subset of predictive performance metric values associated with one or more attributes may be described as a “performance curve.” According to some examples, a performance curve may include data representing a value of a performance metric as a function of time (or any other metric or parameter). For example, a performance curve associated with one or more attributes may specify an amount of engagement (e.g., an engagement value) as a function of time (e.g., a point in time after an electronic message is published). According to some embodiments, performance curve generator 974 may be configured to classify and/or quantify various attributes by, for example, applying machine learning or deep learning techniques, or the like. In one example, performance curve generator 974 may be configure to segregate, separate, or distinguish a number of data points representing similar (or statistically similar) attributes, thereby forming one or more clusters 921 of data (e.g., in 3-4 groupings of data). Clustered data 921 may be grouped or clustered about a particular attribute of the data, such as a source of data (e.g., a channel of data), a type of language, a degree of similarity with synonyms or other words, etc., or any other attribute, characteristic, parameter or the like. While any number of techniques may be implemented, performance curve generator 974 may apply “k-means clustering,” or any other known clustering data identification techniques. In some examples, performance curve generator 974 maybe configured to detect patterns or classifications among datasets and other data through the use of Bayesian networks, clustering analysis, as well as other known machine learning techniques or deep-learning techniques (e.g., including any known artificial intelligence techniques, or any of k-NN algorithms, regression, Bayesian inferences and the like, including classification algorithms, such as Naïve Bayes classifiers, or any other statistical or empirical technique).
Performance curve generator 974 also may be configured to correlate attributes associated with a cluster in clustered data 921 to one or more performance curves 923 based on, for example, data in message data repository 941 that may represent any number of sample sets of data from electronic messages. According to some embodiments, a “performance curve” may represent performance of one or more message components (e.g., one or more words or terms), or attributes thereof, such that a message component, if used, may influence or otherwise contribute to enhancing a value of a performance metric, such as an engagement rate. For example, a term “Tour de France” may be determined to generate a certain engagement value per unit time. In some examples, a performance curve 923a for the term “Tour de France” may represent an influence of the term as a function of time, t. Here, a value of engagement (whether determined empirically or predictively) may vary relative to time, t, in which a level of engagement may reach a value “A” during time “t” such that, cumulatively, the term “Tour de France” may have a total cumulative engagement of “X” (e.g., an area under the curve shown). In another example, the term “Tour de France,” or its synonym, may give rise to a performance curve 923b. In this case, a level of engagement may reach a value “B” during and after time “t” such that, cumulatively, the term “Tour de France” may have a total cumulative engagement of “Y,” which may provide a maximal, sustainable engagement rate over a longer period of time (e.g., slowly increasing to time “t” and maintaining a value “B” over time). Alternatively, in yet another example, the term “Tour de France” may provide for a performance curve 923c in which a level of engagement may quickly reach a value “C,” which is greater than values “A” and “B” during after time “t.” Thus, while performance curve 923c may indicate a performance metric quickly can reach a large value of engagement, subsequent values of performance curve 923c indicate a relatively steep reduction in engagements, with less cumulative total engagements (e.g., Z) than performance curves 923a (e.g., X) and 923b (e.g., Y). Performance curves 923a, 923b, and 923c are non-limiting examples in which one or more message components may be used to predict future performance of a published electronic message. In some cases, a marketer may select a performance curve 923 with which to publish an electronic message.
Further, performance management platform 960 may be configured to generate any number of performance curves 923 associated with any of one or more message components. Consequently, a user 908 may generate a proposed electronic message at user computing device 909, which, in turn, may provide an electronic message and its components to performance management platform 960 for analysis. In some cases, an application associated with computing device 909 may specify, in a user interface 918, that a predicted performance metric value for a particular component or message may not meet particular performance criteria. As such, user 908 may provide a user input with user interface 918 to enhance one or more performance metrics, as set forth in data 907. In some examples, one or more performance curves 923 may be generated based on, for example, cluster analysis, curve matching, or any other known analytical techniques to characterize clustered data, according to some embodiments.
In accordance with various examples, a user 908 may wish to generate an electronic message for publication that is designed to meet certain values of performance metrics and the like. In the example shown, performance curve predictor 975 may be configured to receive data 907, which may include contents (e.g., components, such as text, video, audio, etc.) of a proposed electronic message. During, or subsequent to, a message generation process, performance curve predictor 975 may be configured to generate a predicted performance curve 925 based on the proposed electronic message and its components, such as electronic message 304 of
In one embodiment, a specific performance curve 923 may be relatively close to predicted performance curve 925. Curve matcher 999 may be configured to determine which of performance curves 923a to 923c may be most relevant to an electronic message 907. In some cases, curve matcher 999 is configured to perform curve matching or curve fitting algorithms to identify associated attributes. For example, if curve matcher 999 identifies performance curve 923b as most relevant, then curve matcher 999 may be configured to identify message components contributing to performance curve 923b so that a pending message may be adapted to use those message components. As such, an electronic message incorporating adapted components may be used to transmit or convey a message at a rate of transmission or propagation, as described herein.
Message generator 962 may be configured to generate a message based on user input, as well as information provided by performance metric correlator 976, which may be configured to identify subsets of message components (e.g., words, topics, etc.) for generating an electronic message that comports to one or more performance criteria. Performance metric adjuster 964 is configured to adapt one or more components or words of an electronic message by adjusting performance metric for an electronic message by modifying or a placing a particular term. Thereafter, an electronic message may be formatted in transmitted as data 901c via networks 911 to any number of social media network computing devices.
According to some examples, user interface 1002 may be configured to present predicted performance values 1030 over a number of message components or words. Further to diagram 1000, predicted performance values 1030 may include predicted values 1033 of the term “Tour de France,” predicted values 1035 of the term “jersey” 1034, predicted values 1037 of the term “mountain” 1036, and predicted values 1039 of the term “shirt” 1038. Therefore, user interface 1002 may be configured to present graphical representations of predicted performance values 1030 in a user interface. Should one of predicted performance values 1030 be determined to be less desired, a user may modify a term of the electronic message to ensure performance criteria are met.
Also, a user may monitor performance of one or more of message components in real-time (or near real-time) to determine whether an electronic message, such as a post to a website, is performing as expected (e.g., in accordance with one or more performance metric criteria). As shown, user may select an engagement value 1099 at a time point, T, via user input selector 1098 to identify the performance of the term “Tour de France” at time point T. In some examples, data arrangement 1060 may be displayed responsive to selecting time point T, whereby data arrangement 1060 may present various performance metrics at a particular point in time. Data arrangement 1060 may be presented to convey that a particular term 1061 may be associated with performance metrics 1063, 1065, 1067, or 1069. For example, each term in respective rows 1062, 1064, 1066, and 1068 may be associated with an engagement metric 1063, a number of messages 1065, a peak number of messages 1067, and a number of messages transmitted (or interacted with) per minute (“MPM”) 1069.
As shown, interface 1102 depicts a graphical representation 1120 of various performance metric values and visually-identifiable magnitudes of the values of a performance metric, such as an engagement rate. As shown, term “Tour de France” 1125, “jersey” 1130, “mountain 1140,” and “shirt” 1145 may be presented as synonyms or related terms to a topic “bike racing” (e.g., for purposes of substituting one or more terms for each other to enhance performance). In diagram 1100, term “Tour de France” 1125 is shown to have a relatively large circular size compared to the other terms. Therefore, in this case, the term “Tour de France” may have a relatively larger engagement value than the other terms presented. Each term 1125, 1130, 1140, and 1145 may be presented encapsulating smaller visual indicators 1121 (e.g., circles) that convey a subset of synonyms for each term.
Interface 1102 may also include a user input field 1110 to accept user input (e.g., a new term) to search, discover, and modify presentation of graphical representation 1120 by adding a visual indicator 1112 of a new term to “bike racing.” In some cases, sizes of the visual indicators (e.g., circles) for terms 1125, 1130, 1140, and 1145 may be adjusted in size to accommodate the visual indicator 1112 of the new term. Further, interface 1102 may present data arrangement 1160 to convey that a particular term 1161 may be associated with performance metrics 1163, 1165, 1167, or 1169. For example, each term in respective rows 1162, 1164, 1166, and 1168 may be associated with an engagement metric 1163, a number of messages 1165, a peak number of messages 1167, and a number of messages transmitted (or interacted with) per minute (“MPM”) 1169. Row 1170 may be generated to display corresponding performance metric values as new term 1112 is added to “bike racing.”
At 1204, a component, such as a word, topic, or any other attribute, of an electronic message may be determined prior to publication. According to some examples, a component and/or its attributes may be characterized to identify a type or quantity (or value) associated with the component or attribute.
At 1206, one or more performance criteria for an electronic message may be identified, whereby a performance criterion may define whether formation of an electronic message is compliant with a value of the performance criterion. In some cases, a performance criterion may include data representing a value as a function of time. For example, a rate of engagement may increase during a first time period, and then may maintain a value within a range of engagement rate values during a second time period. At a third time period, a performance criterion may be used to determine whether the rate of engagement for an electronic message component is out of range or non-compliant. If non-compliant, a determination may be made whether to deactivate use or publication of an electronic message in favor of another electronic message. According to some embodiments, a set of values for a performance criterion or criteria may define a “performance curve,” by which, for example, a predicted engagement value per unit time may comport with the curve. In some examples, identifying message performance criteria may include identifying a performance curve associated with at least one performance metric.
At 1208, a message component may be characterized to identify a component attribute, which may have a value that may be measured against a message performance criterion to identify a component attribute. At 1210, a value of a component attribute may be predicted to match at least one of the message performance criteria. In some examples, a value of a component characteristic may be predicted as a value of a “performance curve” in which a value of a performance metric, such as engagement, may vary as a function of time. Therefore, during generation of an electronic message, a performance management platform may be configured to characterize a component at 1206 and determine (e.g., predict) whether the component (or an attribute thereof) is associated with a performance metric value at 1208 that comports with a performance criterion. For example, if a component, such as a term “pizza” is associated with a particular engagement value based on “New York” as an geographic-related attribute, then logic in the performance management platform may compute whether an engagement value associated with the term “pizza” comports with an objective to publish an electronic message advertising “take-out food” in, for example, “Florida” in accordance with performance criteria.
Further to this example, a predicted value of engagement that may be analyzed after an electronic message is published to determine whether it comports with message performance criteria. For example, a monitored or computed component characteristic of +0.015% may be compared against a predicted engagement value of +0.750% over a duration of time “T,” which is less than +0.750%. Thus, in this case, the predicted value of engagement (i.e., the characterized value of a component “pizza”) may be determined to be non-compliant. In some examples, when a predicted value of a component characteristic (e.g., expressed as a performance metric) of an electronic message is predicted to be non-compliant, a performance management platform may be configured to activate one or more other actions. For example, a data repository may be accessed to identify an alternate component for the electronic message. An example of an alternate component is synonym. However, an alternate component and its attributes may be any type of parameter or attribute with which to select another component to enhance a predicted performance level of an electronic message. For instance, an alternate component attribute associated with an alternate component (e.g., another word or synonym) may be matched against message performance criteria to determine whether the use of the alternate component may be predicted to comply with message performance criteria. In some embodiments, curve matching or fitting techniques may be used to determine whether an alternate component attribute may match (i.e., comport) with a message performance criterion. At 1212, an electronic message may be transmitted via a network for presentation on a variety of user interfaces at any number of computing devices.
According to some examples, the electronic message performance management platform 1360 of
Diagram 1300 depicts one or more values of a performance metric 1301 and one or more points in time 1303 that may constitute performance criteria with which to judge or otherwise determine whether performance of a published electronic message may be complying with the performance criteria. If not, corrective action may be taken. During time interval 1330, a first performance criterion specifies that a value of engagement may be monitored against a desired engagement value, V2, 1322. Hence, if monitored performance metric 1310 fails to comply with desired engagement value, V2, 1322 during time interval 1330, then corrective action may be taken. A second performance criterion may specify a time interval 1332 during which a value of engagement is desired to sustain a value in a range between value (“V2”) 1322 and value (“V3”) 1320. Hence, if the valued of monitored performance metric 1310 is below this range, than the monitor performance metrics 1310 may be deemed noncompliant. A third performance criterion may specify a value (“V1”) 1324 at which monitored performance metric 1310 is deemed minimally effective or ineffective. So, if monitored performance metric 1310 is detected to have a value (“V1”) 1324 at time 1334, then the published electronic message may be deemed suboptimal. Corrective action may be taken. According to some embodiments, value (“V1”) 1324 at time 1334 may be described as a “half-life” value (e.g., duration 1334 in which an amount of time elapses such that an electronic message and its contents, such as a brand promotion, has a value that reaches one-half of an average value of engagement). The above-described performance criteria are examples and are not intended to be limiting. Thus, monitor performance metric 1310 may be monitored or compared against any performance or time-related criteria.
At 1406, a value of a performance metric, such a number of impressions, may be monitored. At 1408, a match between one or more values of the performance metric and the performance criterion may be determined, thereby identifying, for example, a point in time or a value of a performance metric associated with a published electronic message that is noncompliant with performance criteria. Hence, a determination may be made to take corrective action, as well as a type of corrective action.
At 1410, another electronic message may be published via one or more channels. In some cases, this electronic message may be a new message or may be based on an earlier message with one or more modified components. A monitored point of time may be matched to one of the one or more time-based criteria values to initiate activation of a second electronic message. Also, a monitored performance metric value may be determined to match one or more performance-based criteria values, which may be defined as triggers to activate publishing of a second electronic message.
In some cases, computing platform 1600 or any portion (e.g., any structural or functional portion) can be disposed in any device, such as a computing device 1690a, mobile computing device 1690b, and/or a processing circuit in association with initiating any of the functionalities described herein, via user interfaces and user interface elements, according to various examples.
Computing platform 1600 includes a bus 1602 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and devices, such as processor 1604, system memory 1606 (e.g., RAM, etc.), storage device 1608 (e.g., ROM, etc.), an in-memory cache (which may be implemented in RAM 1606 or other portions of computing platform 1600), a communication interface 1613 (e.g., an Ethernet or wireless controller, a Bluetooth controller, NFC logic, etc.) to facilitate communications via a port on communication link 1621 to communicate, for example, with a computing device, including mobile computing and/or communication devices with processors, including database devices (e.g., storage devices configured to store atomized datasets, including, but not limited to triplestores, etc.). Processor 1604 can be implemented as one or more graphics processing units (“GPUs”), as one or more central processing units (“CPUs”), such as those manufactured by Intel® Corporation, or as one or more virtual processors, as well as any combination of CPUs and virtual processors. Computing platform 1600 exchanges data representing inputs and outputs via input-and-output devices 1601, including, but not limited to, keyboards, mice, audio inputs (e.g., speech-to-text driven devices), user interfaces, displays, monitors, cursors, touch-sensitive displays, LCD or LED displays, and other I/O-related devices.
Note that in some examples, input-and-output devices 1601 may be implemented as, or otherwise substituted with, a user interface in a computing device associated with, for example, a user account identifier in accordance with the various examples described herein.
According to some examples, computing platform 1600 performs specific operations by processor 1604 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions stored in system memory 1606, and computing platform 1600 can be implemented in a client-server arrangement, peer-to-peer arrangement, or as any mobile computing device, including smart phones and the like. Such instructions or data may be read into system memory 1606 from another computer readable medium, such as storage device 1608. In some examples, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions for implementation. Instructions may be embedded in software or firmware. The term “computer readable medium” refers to any tangible medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 1604 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media and volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks and the like. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory 1606.
Known forms of computer readable media includes, for example, floppy disk, flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic medium, CD-ROM, any other optical medium, punch cards, paper tape, any other physical medium with patterns of holes, RAM, PROM, EPROM, FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, or any other medium from which a computer can access data. Instructions may further be transmitted or received using a transmission medium. The term “transmission medium” may include any tangible or intangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions for execution by the machine, and includes digital or analog communications signals or other intangible medium to facilitate communication of such instructions. Transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including wires that comprise bus 1602 for transmitting a computer data signal.
In some examples, execution of the sequences of instructions may be performed by computing platform 1600. According to some examples, computing platform 1600 can be coupled by communication link 1621 (e.g., a wired network, such as LAN, PSTN, or any wireless network, including WiFi of various standards and protocols, Bluetooth®, NFC, Zig-Bee, etc.) to any other processor to perform the sequence of instructions in coordination with (or asynchronous to) one another. Computing platform 1600 may transmit and receive messages, data, and instructions, including program code (e.g., application code) through communication link 1621 and communication interface 1613. Received program code may be executed by processor 1604 as it is received, and/or stored in memory 1606 or other non-volatile storage for later execution.
In the example shown, system memory 1606 can include various modules that include executable instructions to implement functionalities described herein. System memory 1606 may include an operating system (“O/S”) 1632, as well as an application 1636 and/or logic module(s) 1659. In the example shown in
The structures and/or functions of any of the above-described features can be implemented in software, hardware, firmware, circuitry, or a combination thereof. Note that the structures and constituent elements above, as well as their functionality, may be aggregated with one or more other structures or elements. Alternatively, the elements and their functionality may be subdivided into constituent sub-elements, if any. As software, the above-described techniques may be implemented using various types of programming or formatting languages, frameworks, syntax, applications, protocols, objects, or techniques. As hardware and/or firmware, the above-described techniques may be implemented using various types of programming or integrated circuit design languages, including hardware description languages, such as any register transfer language (“RTL”) configured to design field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), or any other type of integrated circuit. According to some embodiments, the term “module” can refer, for example, to an algorithm or a portion thereof, and/or logic implemented in either hardware circuitry or software, or a combination thereof. These can be varied and are not limited to the examples or descriptions provided.
In some embodiments, modules 1659 of
In some cases, a mobile device, or any networked computing device (not shown) in communication with one or more modules 1659 or one or more of its/their components (or any process or device described herein), can provide at least some of the structures and/or functions of any of the features described herein. As depicted in the above-described figures, the structures and/or functions of any of the above-described features can be implemented in software, hardware, firmware, circuitry, or any combination thereof. Note that the structures and constituent elements above, as well as their functionality, may be aggregated or combined with one or more other structures or elements. Alternatively, the elements and their functionality may be subdivided into constituent sub-elements, if any. As software, at least some of the above-described techniques may be implemented using various types of programming or formatting languages, frameworks, syntax, applications, protocols, objects, or techniques. For example, at least one of the elements depicted in any of the figures can represent one or more algorithms. Or, at least one of the elements can represent a portion of logic including a portion of hardware configured to provide constituent structures and/or functionalities.
For example, modules 1659 or one or more of its/their components, or any process or device described herein, can be implemented in one or more computing devices (i.e., any mobile computing device, such as a wearable device, such as a hat or headband, or mobile phone, whether worn or carried) that include one or more processors configured to execute one or more algorithms in memory. Thus, at least some of the elements in the above-described figures can represent one or more algorithms. Or, at least one of the elements can represent a portion of logic including a portion of hardware configured to provide constituent structures and/or functionalities. These can be varied and are not limited to the examples or descriptions provided.
As hardware and/or firmware, the above-described structures and techniques can be implemented using various types of programming or integrated circuit design languages, including hardware description languages, such as any register transfer language (“RTL”) configured to design field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), multi-chip modules, or any other type of integrated circuit. For example, modules 1659 or one or more of its/their components, or any process or device described herein, can be implemented in one or more computing devices that include one or more circuits. Thus, at least one of the elements in the above-described figures can represent one or more components of hardware. Or, at least one of the elements can represent a portion of logic including a portion of a circuit configured to provide constituent structures and/or functionalities.
According to some embodiments, the term “circuit” can refer, for example, to any system including a number of components through which current flows to perform one or more functions, the components including discrete and complex components. Examples of discrete components include transistors, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, and the like, and examples of complex components include memory, processors, analog circuits, digital circuits, and the like, including field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”). Therefore, a circuit can include a system of electronic components and logic components (e.g., logic configured to execute instructions, such that a group of executable instructions of an algorithm, for example, and, thus, is a component of a circuit). According to some embodiments, the term “module” can refer, for example, to an algorithm or a portion thereof, and/or logic implemented in either hardware circuitry or software, or a combination thereof (i.e., a module can be implemented as a circuit). In some embodiments, algorithms and/or the memory in which the algorithms are stored are “components” of a circuit. Thus, the term “circuit” can also refer, for example, to a system of components, including algorithms. These can be varied and are not limited to the examples or descriptions provided.
Although the foregoing examples have been described in some detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, the above-described inventive techniques are not limited to the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementing the above-described invention techniques. The disclosed examples are illustrative and not restrictive.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6041311 | Chislenko et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6146026 | Ushiku | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6385611 | Cardona | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6684239 | Flepp et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6742032 | Castellani et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6871232 | Curie et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 7032030 | Codignotto | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7222156 | Gupta et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7409710 | Uchil et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7606865 | Kumar et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7644057 | Nelken et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7702541 | Black et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7725492 | Sittig et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7751620 | Cosoi | Jul 2010 | B1 |
| 7756926 | Tseng et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7792948 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818758 | Bonet et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7979369 | Grenier et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8006187 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8027931 | Kalaboukis | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8082308 | Filev | Dec 2011 | B1 |
| 8131745 | Hoffman et al. | Mar 2012 | B1 |
| 8171128 | Zuckerberg et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8200527 | Thompson et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
| 8225376 | Zuckerberg et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8286154 | Kaakani et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8321300 | Bockius et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
| 8412657 | Grenier et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8437369 | Shaikli | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8505069 | Solodovnikov et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8606792 | Jackson et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8615442 | Kapur et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8752041 | Akiyoshi et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8769417 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
| 8825515 | Hanson | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8886580 | Grenier et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8892524 | Lee et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
| 8972428 | Dicker et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9021361 | Pettinati et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
| 9105044 | Wu | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9131382 | Johns | Sep 2015 | B1 |
| 9141997 | Gaedcke et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
| 9143478 | Ramaswamy | Sep 2015 | B2 |
| 9229702 | Kapulkin et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
| 9282098 | Hitchcock et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9311683 | Saylor et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
| 9325696 | Balfanz et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
| 9338186 | Wollenstein et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
| 9378295 | Marra et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9483802 | Gaedcke et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9501746 | Prakash | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9509742 | Gordon | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9519723 | Lorenz et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9596206 | Bueno et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9619531 | Wu | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9756098 | Kazerani et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9787664 | Subbiah et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9800639 | Gordon | Oct 2017 | B2 |
| 9953063 | Spasojevic et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 10084838 | Gordon et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10142386 | Gordon | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| 10264042 | Gordon | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10284723 | Neuer, III et al. | May 2019 | B1 |
| 10855657 | Senftleber et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 20010025253 | Heintz et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010037469 | Gupta et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010042087 | Kephart et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010047290 | Petras et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020010746 | Jilk et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049793 | Okumura et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020070953 | Barg et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020105545 | Carter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020144156 | Copeland | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030005103 | Narad et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030028525 | Santos et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078959 | Yeung et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030128203 | Marshall et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135565 | Estrada | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187871 | Amano et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030225850 | Teague | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040049673 | Song et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073666 | Foster et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133697 | Mamaghani | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040174397 | Cereghini et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050060643 | Glass et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050074126 | Stanko | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132348 | Meulemans et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050206644 | Kincaid | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283614 | Hardt | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060010215 | Clegg et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036685 | Canning et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129602 | Witriol et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143307 | Codignotto | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060155581 | Eisenberger et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060185021 | Dujari et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206578 | Heidloff et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294196 | Feirouz et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070083536 | Darnell et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136354 | Chen | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070171716 | Wright et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226177 | Barsness et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240119 | Ducheneaut et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282800 | England et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070286528 | Podilchuk | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070289006 | Ramachandran et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005284 | Ungar et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080033776 | Marchese | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080034058 | Korman et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080040673 | Zuckerberg et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080103906 | Singh | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109245 | Gupta | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109491 | Gupta | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120379 | Malik | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080126476 | Nicholas et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080133488 | Bandaru et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080178125 | Elsbree et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189406 | Shen | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080201344 | Levergood et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080215591 | Howard et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080221870 | Attardi et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080225848 | Pilon et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263603 | Murray et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080294680 | Powell et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080306830 | Lasa et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090013043 | Tan | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090043852 | Weir et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089657 | Davis | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106080 | Carrier et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132311 | Klinger et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090138472 | MacLean | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144723 | Hartin et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157667 | Brougher et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157708 | Bandini et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157899 | Gagliardi et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158265 | Davis et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090177670 | Grenier et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090181649 | Bull et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210282 | Elenbaas et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090249451 | Su et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292608 | Polachek | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292722 | Ayloo | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300036 | Nagasaki | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100071052 | Mao et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100082503 | Kantak et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100106730 | Aminian et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100119053 | Goeldi | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100121707 | Goeldi | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100121843 | Goeldi | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100153516 | Weinberg et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100169148 | Oberhofer et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205663 | Ward et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100223341 | Manolescu et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100246797 | Chavez et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100250683 | Hoyne et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274732 | Grinchenko et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281258 | Andress et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100287512 | Gan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306122 | Shaffer | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306528 | Andress et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100312769 | Bailey et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004922 | Bono et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055217 | Kamel et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110055264 | Sundelin et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110077988 | Cates et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110113041 | Hawthorne et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119593 | Jacobson et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110125826 | Erhart et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110144801 | Selker et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110153603 | Adiba et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110197146 | Goto et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110212430 | Smithmier et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219087 | Jorasch et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110246513 | Covannon et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110283366 | Kwon et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110289574 | Hull et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110302653 | Frantz et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120036080 | Singer et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054135 | Salaka et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120076367 | Tseng | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120077158 | Jastrzembski et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120089706 | Collins et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120095861 | Feng et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102021 | Hill et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117059 | Bailey et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120131653 | Pasquero et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120158632 | Grenier et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120195422 | Famous | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120208568 | Cooley | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210119 | Baxter et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120232953 | Custer | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120254321 | Lindsay et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120265806 | Blanchflower et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120271729 | Vincelette et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120284155 | Holten et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290605 | Ickman et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303659 | Erhart et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317198 | Patton et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130007121 | Fontenot et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130018957 | Parnaby et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130024522 | Pierre et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130050747 | Cok et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130066876 | Raskino et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130110946 | Bradshaw | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130116044 | Schwartz | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130138428 | Chandramouli et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159472 | Newton et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130198260 | Dow et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212349 | Maruyama | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130218801 | Rago | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130218865 | Angulo et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282417 | Gaedcke et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282594 | Gaedcke et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282603 | Gaedcke et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282722 | Grenier et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130291058 | Wollenstein et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298038 | Spivack et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130304726 | Sandulescu et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130304758 | Gruber et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130318156 | Friedman et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130332263 | Vora et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140006524 | Singh et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140032306 | Sukornyk et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040275 | Dang et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040377 | Friedman et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040993 | Lorenzo et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140047429 | Gaither et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140067520 | Campanile | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140074844 | Subramanian et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082072 | Kass et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140108675 | Wu | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164352 | Denninghoff | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173444 | Wu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173501 | Wu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173509 | Wu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181087 | Wu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181194 | Sullivan | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181728 | Wu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140184841 | Woo et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189808 | Mahaffey et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140200989 | Kassko et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140222834 | Parikh et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140223527 | Bortz et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244621 | Lindsay | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140278785 | Gaedcke et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280113 | Hohwald | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280398 | Smith et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140289034 | Wu | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140298199 | Johnson, Jr. et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304249 | Ayzenshtat et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140324902 | Morris et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140337953 | Banatwala et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140358911 | McCarthy et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150006708 | Banke et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150032492 | Ting et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150032751 | Ting et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150039705 | Kursun | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150100537 | Grieves et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150112918 | Zheng et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150120713 | Kim et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150127453 | Tew et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150134457 | Cheung et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150134579 | Zaman et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150161211 | Patel et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150170294 | Goyal et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188907 | Khalid et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150193504 | Naidu et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150244706 | Grajek et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150281227 | Ivey et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150286643 | Kumar et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150288522 | McCoy et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150295869 | Li et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310018 | Fan et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310020 | Brav et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310571 | Brav et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150312200 | Brav et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150334102 | Haugsnes | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347616 | Levi et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150381552 | Vijay et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160019628 | Udumudi et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160021097 | Shrotri | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160034551 | Huang et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160042053 | Webber | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160055250 | Rush | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160055541 | Calistri-Yeh | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160057576 | Kessler et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160073166 | Hu et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160080445 | Kazerani et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160110688 | Knox et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160125157 | Wu | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132904 | Mondel et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160132973 | Wu | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160134580 | Castera | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160147760 | N et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160151704 | Wu | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160164863 | Hitchcock et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160203221 | Rao et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160203523 | Spasojevic et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160210555 | Murphy et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160320926 | Ganin et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160321261 | Spasojevic et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160321562 | Zeng | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160321694 | Vorozhtsov | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335572 | Bennett et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160352667 | Pickett et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170048237 | Pfitzmann et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170132276 | Saurabh et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170154356 | Trevisiol et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170154366 | Turgeman | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170180294 | Milligan et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170193546 | Bennett et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
| 20170264619 | Narayanaswamy et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170300490 | Kachemir et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170366636 | Wang et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180027075 | Schoeffler et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180041336 | Keshava et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180053114 | Adjaoute | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180081983 | Carru et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180091468 | Yong et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180097802 | Lander et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180144389 | Fredrich et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180152471 | Jakobsson | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180211285 | Todasco et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180219830 | O'Brien et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180295137 | Zager et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180329565 | Yeung et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180332079 | Ashley et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180337907 | Bhansali et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180337910 | Gustayson et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180367484 | Rodriguez et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190057204 | Marcovecchio et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190114356 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190116137 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190158610 | Holzband et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190159166 | Aggarwal et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190228093 | Falcao et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190230151 | Falcao et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190245751 | Wong | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190306248 | Swarangi et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20190354709 | Brinskelle | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20200007530 | Abdul et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
| 20200051120 | Senftleber et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200099676 | Desarda et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200120068 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200120095 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200120096 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200120167 | Senftleber et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200287957 | Falcao et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| 20200329110 | Holzband et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
| 20200358755 | Abdul et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| 20200366564 | Davis et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 102054033 | May 2011 | CN |
| 103177095 | Dec 2015 | CN |
| 2009047674 | Apr 2009 | WO |
| 2013158839 | Oct 2013 | WO |
| 2014089460 | Jun 2014 | WO |
| 2014153463 | Jan 2015 | WO |
| 2015013436 | Jan 2015 | WO |
| 2019075284 | Apr 2019 | WO |
| 2019144159 | Jul 2019 | WO |
| 2020232311 | Nov 2020 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Ahmed, Saba, Final Office Action dated Jun. 29, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,492. |
| Ahmed, Saba, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 19, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,492. |
| Arentz et al., Classifying offensive sites based on image content [online], Computer Vision and Image Understanding 94, 295-310, 2004, Retrieved from the Internet. |
| Blaufeld, Justin R., Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,501. |
| Blaufeld, Justin R., Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,501. |
| Bostock, Mike, Sankey Diagram, available at http://bost.ocks.org/mike/sankey, published May 21, 2012, 1 pg. |
| Brown Jr., Nathan H., Final Office Action dated Mar. 29, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/971,856. |
| Brown Jr., Nathan H., Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/167,482. |
| Brown Jr., Nathan H., Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/780,487. |
| Brown Jr., Nathan H., Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/971,856. |
| Bui, Hanh Thi Minh, Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 13, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/012,978. |
| Chung, Mong-Shune, Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 29, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,505. |
| Filipczyk, Marcin R., Final Office Action dated Oct. 5, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/950,268. |
| Filipczyk, Marcin R., Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 10, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/950,268. |
| Filipczyk, Marcin R., Non-Final Office action dated May 22, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/950,268. |
| Friedman et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/650,849, filed May 23, 2012 and entitled, “Dynamic Information Streams in a Social Network Platform.”. |
| Gaedckle et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/636,132, filed Apr. 20, 2012 and entitled, “System and Method for Providing a Social Customer Care System.”. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Final Office Action dated Mar. 30, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/900,878. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Final Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/900,878. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Final Office Action dated Sep. 21, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/035,166. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/900,878. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 11, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/035,166. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Non-Final Office Action dated May 23, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/035,166. |
| Georgandellis, Andrew C., Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 3, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/900,878. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Final Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/835,502. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Final Office Action dated Jan. 13, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/835,250. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Final Office Action dated Jan. 15, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/865,429. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 13, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/865,429. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/835,250. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/835,502. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/865,411. |
| Goldberg, Ivan R., Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 23, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/865,429. |
| Hatcher, Deirdre D., Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 14, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/950,258. |
| Jang, Gijeong, Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report dated Jul. 28, 2015 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/047866. |
| Kolosowski-Gager, Katherine, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 29, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/627,151. |
| Lithium Website, http://www.lithium.com, Dec. 11, 2010, retrieved from Internet Archive, pp. 1-9. |
| M2 PressWire, “Alterian: Social media monitoring and analytics comes of age with Alterian's acquisition of market leader Techrigy,” Jul. 15, 2009, Anonymous, Norman Media Ltd, London. |
| Mosley, Kyle T., Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 28, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/852,965. |
| Mosley, Kyle T., Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 4, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/627,151. |
| Netzloff, Eric R., Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/848,706. |
| Oh, Eung Gie, Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report dated Nov. 18, 2014 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/031345. |
| Olshannikov, Alex, Final Office Action dated Apr. 15, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,480. |
| Olshannikov, Alex, Final Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2016 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,509. |
| Olshannikov, Alex, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,480. |
| Olshannikov, Alex, Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/098,509. |
| Raju, “5 Ways to Tweet More Than 140 Characters,” Dec. 28, 2008, Technically Personal, http://www.techpp.com/2008/12/28/5-ways-to-tweet-more-than-140-characters/, retrieved from Internet Archive version from Mar. 3, 2011. |
| Rao et al., U.S. Appl. No. 62/049,642, filed Sep. 12, 2014 and entitled, “System and Apparatus for an Application Agnostic User Search Engine.”. |
| Spasojevic et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/943,047, filed Feb. 21, 2014 and entitled, “Domain Generic Large Scale Topic Expertise & Interest Mining Across Multiple Online Social Networks.”. |
| Tabor, Amare F., Final Office Action dated Apr. 8, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/871,076. |
| Tabor, Amare F., Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 15, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/871,076. |
| Thomas, Shane, Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report dated Aug. 16, 2013 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/037107. |
| Walsh, John B., Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2017 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/702,696. |
| Wollenstein et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/639,509, filed Apr. 27, 2012 and entitled, “Systems and Methods for Implementing Custom Privacy Settings.”. |
| Wu, Michael, U.S. Appl. No. 61/734,927, filed Dec. 7, 2012 and entitled, “Systems and Methods for Presenting Analytic Data.”. |
| Wu, Michael, U.S. Appl. No. 62/072,929, filed Oct. 30, 2014 and entitled, “Systems and Methods to Monitor Health of Online Social Communities.”. |
| Young, Lee W., Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report dated May 28, 2014 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/073625. |
| Bista, Sanat Kumar et al., “Using Gamification in an Online Community,” CSIRO ITC Centre, Conference Paper, 2012. |
| Frunzi, Victoria E., Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/018,787. |
| Kolosowski-Gager, Katherine, Final Office Action dated Feb. 11, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/627,151. |
| Lithium Technologies. “Community Health Index for Online Communities.” 2009, https://www.lithium.com/pdfs/whitepapers/Lithium-Community-Health-Index_v1AY2ULb.pdf. Retrieved from the Internet Wayback Machine, dated Feb. 19, 2011. |
| Netzloff, Eric R., Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 6, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/824,021. |
| Ofori-Awuah, Maame, Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 5, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/929,209. |
| Senftleber et al., International (PCT) Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/055545, filed Oct. 12, 2018 and entitled, “Predicting Performance of Content and Electronic Messages Among a System of Networked Computing Devices.”. |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,167, filed Oct. 11, 2018 and entitled, “Credential and Authentication Management in Scalable Data Networks.”. |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,169, filed Oct. 11, 2018 and entitled, “Native Activity Tracking Using Credential and Authentication Management in Scalable Data Networks.”. |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,172, filed Oct. 11, 2018 and entitled, “Proxied Multi-Factor Authentication Using Credential and Authentication Management in Scalable Data Networks.”. |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 16/194,126, filed Nov. 16, 2018 and entitled, “Multiplexed Data Exchange Portal Interface in Scalable Data Networks.”. |
| Vo, Huyen X., Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 15, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,642. |
| Young, Lee W., Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration, dated Apr. 1, 2019 for International Application No. PCT/US2018/05545. |
| “Craigslist Online Community.” Craigslist.org. Jul. 6, 2010. |
| Cannell, Larry, “Windows 7 Federated Search and SharePoint 2010” online article dated Jun. 2010 <http://blogs.gartner.com/larry-cannell/2010/09/09/windows-7-federated-search-and-sharepoint-2010/[May 13, 2016 12:36:15 PM]. |
| Constine, Josh, “Facebook tests notification unsubscribe button for feed posts,” Aug. 9, 2010. http://www.adweek.com/socialtime/unsubscribe-button-posts/244868. |
| Dwyer, Cameron, “Five out-of-the-box ways to get Email into SharePoint” Jan. 2012, <https://camerondwyer.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/five-out-of-the-box-ways-to-get-email-into-sharepoint/[May 13, 2016 10:48:43 AM]. |
| Emojipedia, (https://web.archive.org/web/20150915110235/https://emojipedia.org/fisted-hand-sign/), Date: Sep. 15, 2015; (https://web.archive.org/web/20150823012626/https://emojipedia.org/clapping-hands-sign/), Date: Aug. 23, 2015; (https://web.archive.org/web/20150829090848/https://emojipedia.org/smiling-face-with-sunglasses/), Date: Aug. 29, 2015. |
| Falcao et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/877,379, filed Jan. 22, 2018 and entitled, “Temporal Optimization of Data Operations Using Distributed Search and Server Management.”. |
| Falcao et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/877,381, filed Jan. 22, 2018 and entitled, “Temporal Optimization of Data Operations Using Distributed Search and Server Management.”. |
| Giphy, (https://web.archive.org/web/20140813065113/http://giphy.com/search/happy), Date: Aug. 13, 2014; https://web.archive.org/web20141231135329/https://giphy.com/upload, Date: Dec. 31, 2014; https://web.archive.org/web/20150919214012/http://giphy.com/create/upload, Date: Sep. 19, 2015. |
| Hashemi, Mazdak, “The Infrastructure Behind Twitter: Scale”, Jan. 19, 2017, Twitter, Inc. Blog Post, https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastructure/2017/the-infrastructure-behind-twitter-scale.html. |
| Holzband et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/821,543, filed Nov. 22, 2017 and entitled, “Responsive Action Prediction Based on Electronic Messages Among a System of Networked Computing Devices.”. |
| Jou et al., “Predicting Viewer Perceived Emotions in Animated GIFs”, Nov. 3-7, 2014 (4 pages). |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,642, filed Oct. 12, 2017 and entitled, “Predicting Performance of Content and Electronic Messages Among a System of Networked Computing Devices.”. |
| Senftleber et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,653, filed Oct. 12, 2017 and entitled, “Optimizing Effectiveness of Content in Electronic Messages Among a System of Networked Computing Device.”. |
| Rashid, Ishrat, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 11, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,653. |
| Young, Lee W.; Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration dated Jun. 24, 2019 for International Application No. PCT/US2019/014637. |
| Fiorillo, James N., Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/821,543 dated Aug. 16, 2019. |
| Dagnew, Saba, Final Office Action dated Feb. 12, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/581,795. |
| Dagnew, Saba, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/581,795 dated Sep. 16, 2019. |
| Dinh, Khanh Q., Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due dated Oct. 29, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/877,379. |
| Fiorillo, James N., Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due dated Nov. 14, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/821,543. |
| Matthews, Tara, et al. “Community Insights: Helping Community Leaders Enhance the Value of Enterprise Online Communities.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 27-May 2, 2013, Paris, France. ACM (2013). pp. 513-522. |
| Meng, Jau Shya, Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 3, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/877,381. |
| Meng, Jau Shya, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 16, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/877,381. |
| Ofori-Awuah, Maame, Final Office Action dated Sep. 6, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/929,209. |
| Perungavoor, Venkatanaray, Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,167, dated May 15, 2020. |
| Rashid, Ishrat, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,653 dated Sep. 19, 2019. |
| Rashid, Ishrat, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/782,653. |
| Spasojevic, Nemanja et al., “When-To-Post on Social Networks”, International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), Aug. 10-13, 2015, pp. 2127-2136, Retrieved Online: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?d=2788584. |
| Suh, Andrew, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,172. |
| Takesue, Masaru, An HTTP Extension for Secure Transfer of Confidential Data, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Architecture, and Storage, Hunan, 2009, pp. 101-108, doi: 10.1109/NAS.2009.21. |
| Wang, Xiaoqing, and Shannon Lantzy. “A Systematic Examination of Member Turnover and Online Community Health.” Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai (2011), pp. 1-11. |
| Anicas, Mitchell; An Introduction to OAuth 2, DigitalOcean, Published Jul. 21, 2014, Retrieved Jan. 29, 2021; <>. |
| Fett et al., The Web SSO Standard OpenID Connect: In-Depth Formal Security Analysis and Security Guidelines, 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (Year: 2017). |
| Hardt, Dick, The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework draft-ieft-oauth-v2-31; Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) (Year: 2012). |
| Kim, Harry C., Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration dated Sep. 16, 2020 for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2020/032999. |
| Liu et al., OAuth Based Authentication and Authorization in Open Telco API; International Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering, 2012 (Year: 2012). |
| Niruntasukrat et al., Authorization Mechanism for MQTT-based Internet of Things, IEEE ICC 2016 Workshops: W07-Workshop on Convergent Internet of Things (Year: 2016). |
| Ofori-Awuah, Maame, Final Office Action dated Oct. 2, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 14/929,209. |
| Shaw, Robert A., Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 22, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,169. |
| Singh, Amardeep, IP Australia, Examination Report No. 1 for Australia Patent Application No. 2019209542 dated Dec. 17, 2020. |
| Suh, Andrew, Final Office Action dated Dec. 3, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/158,172. |
| Takesue, Masaru, An HTTP Extension for Secure Transfer of Confidential Data. IEEE, 2009 (Year: 2009). |
| Trapanese, William C., Non-Final Office Action dated May 27, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/413,577. |
| Vo, Huyen X., Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 15, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/458,183. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190116148 A1 | Apr 2019 | US |
