Advertisers, media producers, educators and other relevant parties have long desired to understand the responses their targets—customers, clients and pupils—have to their particular stimulus in order to tailor their information or media instances to better suit the needs of these targets and/or to increase the effectiveness of the media instance created. A key to making a high performing media instance is to make sure that every event in the media instance elicits the desired responses from the viewers, not responses very different from what the creator of the media instance expected. The media instance herein can be but is not limited to, a video, an advertisement clip, a movie, a computer application, a printed media (e.g., a magazine), a video game, a website, an online advertisement, a recorded video, a live performance, a debate, and other types of media instance from which a viewer can learn information or be emotionally impacted.
It is well established that physiological response is a valid measurement for viewers' changes in emotions and an effective media instance that connects with its audience/viewers is able to elicit the desired physiological responses from the viewers. Every media instance may have its key events/moments—moments which, if they do not evoke the intended physiological responses from the viewers, the effectiveness of the media instance may suffer significantly. For a non-limiting example, if an ad is intended to engage the viewers by making them laugh, but the viewers do not find a 2-second-long punch-line funny, such negative responses to this small piece of the ad may drive the overall reaction to the ad. Although survey questions such as “do you like this ad or not” have long been used to gather viewers' subjective reactions to a media instance, they are unable to provide more insight into why and what have caused the viewers reacted in the way they did.
An approach enables an event-based framework for evaluating a media instance based on key events of the media instance. First, physiological responses are derived and aggregated from the physiological data of viewers of the media instance. The key events in the media instance can then be identified, wherein such key events drive and determine the viewers' responses to the media instance. Causal relationship between the viewers' responses to the key events and their surveyed feelings about the media instance can further be established to identify why and what might have caused the viewers to feel the way they do.
Such an approach provides information that can be leveraged by a creator of the media instance to improve the media instance. For a non-limiting example, if a joke in an advertisement is found to drive purchase intent of the product advertised, but the advertisement's target demographic does not respond to the joke, the joke can be changed so that the advertisement achieves its goal: increasing product purchase intent in the target demographic.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter. These and other advantages of the present disclosure will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon a reading of the following descriptions and a study of the several figures of the drawings.
a)-(c) depict exemplary traces of physiological responses measured and exemplary dividing lines of events in a media instance.
a)-(c) depict exemplary event identification results based on different event defining approaches.
a)-(b) depict exemplary correlations between physiological responses from viewers to key jokes in an ad and the surveyed intent of the viewers to tell others about the ad.
The disclosure is illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements. It should be noted that references to “an” or “one” or “some” example(s) in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same example, and such references mean at least one. Although the subject matter is described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
Although the diagrams depict components as functionally separate, such depiction is merely for illustrative purposes. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the components portrayed in this figure can be arbitrarily combined or divided into separate software, firmware and/or hardware components. Furthermore, it will also be apparent to those skilled in the art that such components, regardless of how they are combined or divided, can execute on the same computing device or multiple computing devices, and wherein the multiple computing devices can be connected by one or more networks.
Physiological data, which includes but is not limited to heart rate, brain waves, electroencephalogram (EEG) signals, blink rate, breathing, motion, muscle movement, galvanic skin response and any other response correlated with changes in emotion of a viewer of a media instance, can give a trace (e.g., a line drawn by a recording instrument) of the viewer's responses while he/she is watching the media instance. The physiological data can be measure by one or more physiological sensors, each of which can be but is not limited to, an electroencephalogram, an accelerometer, a blood oxygen sensor, a galvanometer, an electromyograph, skin temperature sensor, breathing sensor, and any other physiological sensor.
The physiological data in the human body of a viewer has been shown to correlate with the viewer's change in emotions. Thus, from the measured “low level” physiological data, “high level” (i.e., easier to understand, intuitive to look at) physiological responses from the viewers of the media instance can be created. An effective media instance that connects with its audience/viewers is able to elicit the desired emotional response. Here, the high level physiological responses include, but are not limited to, liking (valence)—positive/negative responses to events in the media instance, intent to purchase or recall, emotional engagement in the media instance, thinking—amount of thoughts and/or immersion in the experience of the media instance, adrenaline—anger, distraction, frustration, and other emotional experiences to events in the media instance. In addition, the physiological responses may also include responses to other types of sensory stimulations, such as taste and/or smell, if the subject matter is food or a scented product instead of a media instance.
The response module 102 is a software component which while in operation, first accepts and/or records physiological data from each of a plurality of viewers watching a media instance, then derives and aggregates physiological responses from the collected physiological data. Such derivation can be accomplished via a plurality of statistical measures, which include but are not limited to, average value, deviation from mean, 1st order derivative of the average value, 2nd order derivative of the average value, coherence, positive response, negative response, etc., using the physiological data of the viewers as inputs. Facial expression recognition, “knob” and other measures of emotion can also be used as inputs with comparable validity. Here, the physiological data may be either be retrieved from a storage device or measured via one or more physiological sensors, each of which can be but is not limited to, an electroencephalogram, an accelerometer, a blood oxygen sensor, a galvanometer, an electromyograph, and any other physiological sensor either in separate or integrated form. The derived physiological responses can then be aggregated over the plurality of viewers watching one or more media instances.
The event defining module 104 is a software component which while in operation, defines and marks occurrences and durations of a plurality of events happening in the media instance. The duration of each of event in the media instance can be constant, non-linear, or semi-linear in time. Such event definition may happen either before or after the physiological data of the plurality of viewers has been measured, where in the later case, the media instance can be defined into the plurality of events based on the physiological data measured from the plurality of viewers.
The key event module 106 is a software component which while in operation, identifies one or more key events in the media instance and reports the key events to an interested party of the media instance, wherein the key events drive and determine the viewers' physiological responses to the media instance. Key events in the media instance can be used to pinpoint whether and/or which part of the media instance need to be improved or changed, and which part of the media instance should be kept intact. For non-limiting examples, the key event module may identify which key event(s) in the media instance trigger the most positive or negative responses from the viewers, or alternatively, which key event(s) are polarizing events, e.g., they cause large discrepancies in the physiological responses from different demographic groups of viewers, such as between groups of men and women, when the groups are defined by demographic characteristics. In addition, the key event module is operable to establish a causal relationship between the viewers' responses to the events in the media instance and their surveyed feelings about the media instance so that creator of the media instance may gain insight into the reason why and what key events might have caused the viewers to feel the way they do.
The reaction database 108 stores pertinent data of the media instance the viewers are watching, wherein the pertinent data includes but is not limited to survey questions and results asked for each of the plurality of viewers before, during, and/or after their viewing of the media instance. In addition, the pertinent data may also include but is not limited to the following:
While the system 100 depicted in
Referring to
Events Definition
In some examples, the event defining module 104 is operable to define occurrence and duration of events in the media instance based on salient positions identified in the media instance. Once salient positions in the media instance are identified, the events corresponding to the salient positions can be extracted. For a non-limiting example, an event in a video game may be defined as a “battle tank” appearing in the player's screen and lasting as long as it remains on the screen. For another non-limiting example, an event in a movie may be defined as occurring every time a joke is made. While defining humor is difficult, punch line events that are unexpected, absurd, and comically exaggerated often qualify as joke events.
a) shows an exemplary trace of the physiological response—“Engagement” for a player playing Call of Duty 3 on the Xbox 360. The trace is a time series, with the beginning of the session on the left and the end on the right. Two event instances 301 and 302 are circled, where 301 on the left shows low “Engagement” during a game play that happens during a boring tutorial section. 302 shows a high “Engagement” section that has been recorded when the player experiences the first battle of the game.
In some examples, the event defining module 104 is operable to define occurrence and duration of events in the media instance via at least the one or more of the following approaches. The events so identified by the event defining module 104 are then provided to the key event module 106 to test for “significance” as key events in the media instance as described below.
The hypothesis approach, which utilizes human hypothesis to identify events in the media instance, wherein such events shall be tested for significance as key events.
The small pieces or time shift approach, which breaks the media instance into small pieces in time, and scans each small piece for significant switch in the viewers' responses, wherein consecutive significant small pieces can be integrated as one key event. For the non-limiting example of
The turning point approach, which finds where the aggregated physiological responses (traces), first derivative, and second derivative of aggregated trace(s) have roots and uses them as possible event cut points (delimiters). Here, roots of the aggregate traces can be interpreted as points when the viewers' aggregated physiological responses transition from above average to below average, or from positive to negative. Roots in the first derivative of the aggregate traces can be interpreted as ‘turning points’, at which the physiological responses transition from a state of increasing positivity to increasing negativity, or vice versa. Roots in the second derivative of the aggregate traces can also be interpreted as ‘turning points’, points, at which the physiological responses begin to slow down the rate of increase in positivity. All such roots are then collected in a set s. For every pair i,j of roots in the set s for which j occurs after i in the media instance, the event which starts at i and ends at j is tested for significance as a key event. Note here that i and j do not have to be consecutive in time.
The multi-component event approach, which breaks the media instance down into components and then divides each component into events. A media instance typically has many components. For a non-limiting example, an advertisement can have one or more of: voiceover, music, branding, and visual components. All points in the media instance for which there is a significant change in one of the components, such as when the voiceover starts and ends, can be human marked. As with the turning point approach, all the marked points can be collected in the set s. For every pair i,j of roots in the set s for which j occurs after i in the media instance, the event which starts at i and ends at j is tested for significance as a key event. While this approach requires greater initial human input, it may provide more precise, more robust results based on automated higher-level analysis and the benefits would outweigh the costs. For a non-limiting example, a car ad can be broken down into visual, dialogue, music, text, and branding components, each with one or more events. For the exemplary car ad shown in
Key Events Identification
In some examples, the key event module 106 is operable to accept the events defined by the event defining module 104 and automatically spot statistically significant/important points in the aggregated physiological responses from the viewers relevant to identify the key moments/events in the media instance. More specifically, the key event module is operable to determine one or more of:
In some examples, the key events found can be used to improve the media instance. Here “improving the media instance” can be defined as, but is not limited to, changing the media instance so that it is more likely to achieve the goals of the interested party or creator of the media instance.
In some examples, the key event module 106 is further operable to establish a casual relationship between surveyed feelings about the media instance and the key events identified based on the physiological responses from the viewers. In other words, it establishes a correlation between the physiological responses from the viewers to key events in the media instance and a surveyed outcome, i.e., the viewers' reported feelings on a survey, and reports to the interested parties (e.g. creator of the event) which key events in the media instance actually caused the outcome. Here, the outcome can include but is not limited to, liking, effectiveness, purchase intent, post viewing product selection, etc. For a non-limiting example, if the viewers indicate on a survey that they did not like the media instance, something about the media instance might have caused them to feel this way. While the cause may be a reaction to the media instance in general, it can often be pinned down to a reaction to one or more key events in the media instance as discussed above. The established casual relationship explains why the viewers report on the survey their general feelings about the media instance the way they do without human input.
In some examples, the key event module 106 is operable to adopt multivariate regression analysis via a multivariate model that incorporates the physiological responses from the viewers as well as the surveyed feelings from the viewers to determine which events, on average, are key events in driving reported feelings (surveyed outcome) about the media instance. Here, the multivariate regression analysis examines the relationship among many factors (the independent variables) and a single, dependent variable, which variation is thought to be at least partially explained by the independent variables. For a non-limiting example, the amount of rain that falls on a given day varies, so there is variation in daily rainfall. Both the humidity in the air and the number of clouds in the sky on a given day can be hypothesized to explain this variation in daily rainfall. This hypothesis can be tested via multivariate regression, with daily rainfall as the dependent variable, and humidity and number of clouds as independent variables.
In some examples, the multivariate model may have each individual viewer's reactions to certain key events in the media instance as independent variables and their reported feeling about the media instance as the dependent variable. The coefficients from regressing the independent variables on the dependent variable would determine which key events are causing the reported feelings. Such a multivariate model could be adopted here to determine what set of key events most strongly affect reported feelings from the viewers about the media instance, such as a joke in an advertisement. One characterization of such event(s) is that the more positive (negative) the viewers respond to the event(s), the more likely the viewers were to express positive feelings about the media instance. For a non-limiting example, a multivariate regression can be run on multiples events (1, 2 . . . n) within an entire montage sequence of an advertisement to determine which events drive liking the most, using relationship between reported feelings about the ad and the emotional responses from the viewers to the events in the ad as input. The results of the multivariate regression runs shown in
In an automated process, this multivariate regression may be run stepwise, which essentially tries various combinations of independent variables, determining which combination has the strongest explanatory power. This is a step toward creating the causal relationship between the viewers' responses to the events and their surveyed feelings about the media instance. For a non-limiting example, if response to joke #2 is correlated with indicated intent to purchase when holding genders and responses to jokes #1 and #3 constant, a causal conclusion can be made that joke #2 triggers the viewers' intent to purchase.
In some examples, the key event module 106 identifies the key polarizing event(s) that cause statistically significant difference in the surveyed outcome from different demographic groups of viewers and provides insight into, for non-limiting examples, why women do not like the show or which issue actually divides people in a political debate. The key event module 106 may collect demographic data from overall population of the viewers and categorize them into groups to differentiate the responses for the subset, wherein the viewers can be grouped one or more of: race, gender, age, education, demographics, income, buying habits, intent to purchase, and intent to tell. Such grouping information can be included in the regressions to determine how different groups report different reactions to the media instance in the survey. Furthermore, grouping/event response interaction variables can be included to determine how different groups respond differently to the key events in the media instance. For key events that are polarizing, demographic information and/or interaction variables of the viewers can also be included to the multivariate model capture the combined effect of the demographic factor and the reaction to the polarizing key events.
For a non-limiting example, the viewers of an ad can be first asked a survey question, “How likely are you to tell someone about this particular commercial—meaning tell a friend about this ad you've just seen” as shown in
One example may be implemented using a conventional general purpose or a specialized digital computer or microprocessor(s) programmed according to the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the computer art. Appropriate software coding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers based on the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the software art. The disclosure may also be implemented by the preparation of integrated circuits or by interconnecting an appropriate network of conventional component circuits, as will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
One example includes a computer program product which is a machine readable medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used to program one or more computing devices to perform any of the features presented herein. The machine readable medium can include, but is not limited to, one or more types of disks including floppy disks, optical discs, DVD, CD-ROMs, micro drive, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, DRAMs, VRAMs, flash memory devices, magnetic or optical cards, nanosystems (including molecular memory ICs), or any type of media or device suitable for storing instructions and/or data. Stored on any one of the computer readable medium (media), the present disclosure includes software for controlling both the hardware of the general purpose/specialized computer or microprocessor, and for enabling the computer or microprocessor to interact with a human viewer or other mechanism utilizing the results of the present disclosure. Such software may include, but is not limited to, device drivers, operating systems, execution environments/containers, and applications.
The foregoing disclosed examples has been provided for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art. Particularly, while the concept “module” is used in the examples of the systems and methods described above, it will be evident that such concept can be interchangeably used with equivalent concepts such as, class, method, type, interface, bean, component, object model, and other suitable concepts. Examples were chosen and described in order to best describe the principles of the disclosure and its practical application, thereby enabling others skilled in the art to understand the disclosure, the various examples and with various modifications that are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the disclosure be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
This patent arises from a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/959,399, filed on Dec. 18, 2007, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3950618 | Bloisi | Apr 1976 | A |
4695879 | Weinblatt | Sep 1987 | A |
4755045 | Borah et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4846190 | John | Jul 1989 | A |
4931934 | Snyder | Jun 1990 | A |
4974602 | Abraham-Fuchs et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5041972 | Frost | Aug 1991 | A |
5077785 | Monson | Dec 1991 | A |
5124911 | Sack | Jun 1992 | A |
5243517 | Schmidt et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5301109 | Landauer et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5317507 | Gallant | May 1994 | A |
5321833 | Chang et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5371673 | Fan | Dec 1994 | A |
5406957 | Tansev | Apr 1995 | A |
5447166 | Gevins | Sep 1995 | A |
5450855 | Rosenfeld | Sep 1995 | A |
5495412 | Thiessen | Feb 1996 | A |
5519608 | Kupiec | May 1996 | A |
5537618 | Boulton et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5579774 | Miller et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5601090 | Musha | Feb 1997 | A |
5659732 | Kirsch | Aug 1997 | A |
5659742 | Beattie et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5668953 | Sloo | Sep 1997 | A |
5671333 | Catlett et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5675710 | Lewis | Oct 1997 | A |
5676138 | Zawilinski | Oct 1997 | A |
5692906 | Corder | Dec 1997 | A |
5696962 | Kupiec | Dec 1997 | A |
5721721 | Yanagisawa et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5724987 | Givens et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5740812 | Cowan | Apr 1998 | A |
5761383 | Engel | Jun 1998 | A |
5774591 | Black et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5794412 | Ronconi | Aug 1998 | A |
5819285 | Damico et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5822744 | Kesel | Oct 1998 | A |
5836771 | Ho et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845278 | Kirsch et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5857179 | Vaithyanathan et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5884302 | Ho | Mar 1999 | A |
5895450 | Sloo | Apr 1999 | A |
5911043 | Duffy et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920854 | Kirsch et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5924094 | Sutter | Jul 1999 | A |
5950172 | Klingman | Sep 1999 | A |
5950189 | Cohen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5953718 | Wical | Sep 1999 | A |
5974412 | Halehurst et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5983129 | Cowan et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983214 | Lang et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983216 | Kirsch et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999908 | Abelow | Dec 1999 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6021409 | Burrows | Feb 2000 | A |
6026387 | Kesel | Feb 2000 | A |
6026388 | Liddy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029161 | Lang et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029195 | Herz | Feb 2000 | A |
6032145 | Beall et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035294 | Fish | Mar 2000 | A |
6038610 | Belfiore et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067539 | Cohen | May 2000 | A |
6078892 | Anderson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6094657 | Hailpern et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6098066 | Snow et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6099319 | Zaltman et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112203 | Bharat et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119933 | Wong | Sep 2000 | A |
6138113 | Dean et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138128 | Perkowitz et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6169986 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185558 | Bowman et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192360 | Dumais et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6202068 | Kraay et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233575 | Agrawal | May 2001 | B1 |
6236977 | Verba et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236987 | Horowitz et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236991 | Frauenhofer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6254536 | DeVito | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6260041 | Gonzalez | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266664 | Russell-Falla et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269362 | Broder et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278990 | Horowitz | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289342 | Lawrence et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292688 | Patton | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304864 | Liddy et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308176 | Bagshaw | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6309342 | Blazey et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314420 | Lang et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322368 | Young et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6334131 | Chakrabarti et al. | Dec 2001 | B2 |
6360215 | Judd et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6362837 | Ginn | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366908 | Chong et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377946 | Okamoto et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385586 | Dietz | May 2002 | B1 |
6393460 | Gruen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401118 | Thomas | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411936 | Sanders | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421675 | Ryan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434549 | Linetsky et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6493703 | Knight et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507866 | Barchi | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513032 | Sutter | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519631 | Rosenschein et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6526440 | Bharat | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539375 | Kawasaki | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6546390 | Pollack et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553358 | Horvitz | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6571234 | Knight et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571238 | Pollack et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6574614 | Kesel | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6584470 | Veale | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6585521 | Obrador | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606644 | Ford et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609024 | Ryu et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6622140 | Kantrowitz | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6623428 | Miller et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6626676 | Freer | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6640218 | Golding et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6651056 | Price et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6651086 | Manber et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6652283 | Van Schaack et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654813 | Black et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6656116 | Kim et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6658389 | Alpdemir | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662170 | Dom | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6671061 | Joffe et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678866 | Sugimoto et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6708215 | Hingorani et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721734 | Subasic et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6751606 | Fries et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6751683 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757646 | Marchisio | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6772141 | Pratt et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775664 | Lang et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6778975 | Anick et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782393 | Balabanovic et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792304 | Silberstein | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795826 | Flinn et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6807566 | Bates et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6839682 | Blume | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6928526 | Zhu et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6978115 | Whitehurst et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6978292 | Murakami et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6983320 | Thomas | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6999914 | Boerner et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7035685 | Ryu et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043760 | Holtzman et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7050753 | Knutson | May 2006 | B2 |
7113916 | IIill | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7146416 | Yoo | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7185065 | Holtzman et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7188078 | Arnett et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7188079 | Arnett et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7197470 | Arnett et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7277919 | Donoho | Oct 2007 | B1 |
D565735 | Washbon | Apr 2008 | S |
7363243 | Arnett et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7523085 | Nigam et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7596552 | Levy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7600017 | Holtzman et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7660783 | Reed | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7725414 | Nigam et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7844483 | Arnett et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7844484 | Arnett et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7877345 | Nigam et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
8041669 | Nigam et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8635105 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
20010016874 | Ono et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010042087 | Kephart et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056225 | DeVito | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020010691 | Chen | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020032772 | Olstad et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020059258 | Kirkpatrick | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062368 | Holtzman et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020087515 | Swannack | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020123988 | Dean et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133481 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020154833 | Koch et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020159642 | Whitney | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020182574 | Freer | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030003433 | Carpenter et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030063780 | Gutta et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070338 | Roshkoff | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076369 | Resner | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081834 | Philomin et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088532 | Hampshire | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093784 | Dimitrova et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030126593 | Mault | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030153841 | Kilborn et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040018476 | Ladue | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024752 | Manber et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039268 | Barbour et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054737 | Daniell | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059708 | Dean et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059729 | Krupin et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040072133 | Kullok et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078432 | Manber et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040111412 | Broder | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122811 | Page | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040199498 | Kapur et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205482 | Basu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040208496 | Pilu | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210561 | Shen | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040267141 | Amana et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010087 | Banet | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050043774 | Devlin et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050045189 | Jay | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050049908 | Hawks | Mar 2005 | A2 |
20050066307 | Madhu et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071865 | Martins | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050097594 | O'Donnell et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113656 | Chance | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114161 | Garg | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125216 | Chitrapura et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154686 | Corston et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050172311 | Hjelt et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050209907 | Williams | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060004691 | Sifry | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060041605 | King et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060069589 | Nigam et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060173819 | Watson | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060173837 | Berstis et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060173985 | Moore | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206505 | Hyder et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060253316 | Blackshaw | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060258926 | Ali et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277102 | Agliozzo | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060287989 | Glance | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293921 | McCarthy et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070027840 | Cowling et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033189 | Levy et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070053513 | Hoffberg | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070055169 | Lee et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060830 | Lc et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060831 | Le et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070066914 | Le et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070100779 | Levy et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101360 | Gutta et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070116037 | Moore | May 2007 | A1 |
20070168461 | Moore | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173733 | Le et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179396 | Le et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070184420 | Mathan et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225585 | Washbon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070235716 | Delic et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070238945 | Delic et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265507 | De Lemos | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080091512 | Marci et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080144882 | Leinbach et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080159365 | Dubocanin et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177197 | Lee et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080211768 | Breen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090024049 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024447 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024448 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024449 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024475 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090025023 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030287 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030303 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030717 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030930 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090036755 | Pradeep et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090036756 | Pradeep et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090062629 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090062681 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090063255 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090063256 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090082643 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083129 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090105576 | Do et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090112077 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090156925 | Jin et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090214060 | Chuang et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222330 | Leinbach | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20110161270 | Arnett et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20130304540 | Pradeep et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130332259 | Pradeep et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1052582 | Nov 2000 | EP |
2006-305334 | Mar 2006 | JP |
10-2000-0072489 | Dec 2000 | KR |
10-2001-0104579 | Nov 2001 | KR |
0017824 | Mar 2000 | WO |
0017827 | Mar 2000 | WO |
0197070 | Dec 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Coan et al., “Voluntary Facial Expression and Hemispheric Asymmetry Over the Frontal Cortex,” Psychophysiology (Nov. 2001), 912-925, 14 pages. |
Duchowski, “A Breadth-First Survey of Eye-tracking Applications,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers (Nov. 2002), 455-470, 16 pages. |
Heo et al., “Wait! Why is it Not Moving? Attractive and Distractive Ocular Responses to Web Ads,” Paper presented to AEJMC, (Aug. 2001) Washington, DC, available at http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/researchpage/newabstracts/wait.html, 3 pages. |
Rothschild et al., “Predicting Memory for Components of TV Commercials from EEG,” Journal of Consumer Research (Mar. 1990), p. 472-478, 8 pages. |
Beaver, John D., et al., “Individual Differences in Reward Drive Predict Neural Responses to Images of Food”, J. of Neuroscience, (May 10, 2006), 5160-5166, 7 pages. |
Shandlen, Michael N. et al., “A Computational Analysis of the Relationship between Neuronal and Behavioral Responses to Visual Motion”, The Journal of Neuroscience, (Feb. 15, 1996) 1486-1510, 25 pages. |
Technology Platform: SmartShirt +Eye-Tracking Innerscope Research, Mar. 2007, 1 page. |
Egner, Tobias; Emilie Strawson, and John H. Gruzelier, “EEG Signature and Phenomenology of Alpha/theta Neurofeedback Training Versus Mock Feedback.” Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. vol. 27, No. 4. Dec. 2002, 10 pages. |
Clarke, Adam R et al., BEG Analysis of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Comorbid Reading Disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 35, No. 3, (May-Jun. 2002), pp. 276-285, 10 pages. |
Carter, R., “Mapping the Mind” 1998 p. 182 University of California Press, Berkley, 3 pages. |
Harmony et al. (2004) Specific EEG frequencies signal general common cognitive processes as well as specific tasks processes in man. Int. Journal of PsychoPhYsiology 53(3): 207-16, 10 pages. |
Klimesch, W., Schimke, H., Schwaiger, J. (1994) Episodic and semantic memory: an analysis in the EEG theta and alpha band. Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysioloqy, 14 pages. |
Mizuhara, H., Wang LQ, Kobayashi, K., Yamaguchi, Y., (2004) A long range cortical network emerging with theta oscillation in mental task. Neuroreport 15(8): 1233-1238, 11 pages. |
Selden, G (1981) “Machines that Read Minds.” Science Digest, Oct., 9 pages. |
Willis, M. & Hodson, V.; Discover Your Child's Learning Style: Children Learn in Unique Ways—Here's the Key to Every Child's Learning Success, Prime Publishing. Roseville, CA, 22 pages. |
Wise, A (1996) The High Performance Mind, Mastering Brainwaves for Insight, Healing and Creativity G.P. Putnam's Son, New York. pp. 13-15; 20-22; 143-156, 11 pages. |
Wise, A (1996) The High Performance Mind, Mastering Brainwaves for Insight, Healing and Creativity G.P. Putnam's Son, New York. pp. 156-158; 165-170; 186-187, 189-192, 15 pages. |
EI-Bab, M. (2001) Cognitive event related potentials during a learning task. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK, 25 pages. |
Gevins et al. (1997) High resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to a working memory, Cereb Cortex. 7: 374-385, 12 pages. |
Hughes, J.R. & John, E.R. (1999) Conventional and Quantitative Electroencephalography in Psychiatry. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. Volume 11 (2): 190-208, 19 pages. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Jan. 21, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT International Search Report,” Jan. 21, 2009, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Jan. 21, 2009, 15 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Nov. 28, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT International Search Report,” Nov. 28, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Nov. 28, 2008, 9 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Mar. 20, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/USOS/85723, “PCT International Search Report,” Mar. 20, 2009, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Mar. 20, 2009, 7 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Feb. 27, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT International Search Report,” Feb. 27, 2009, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Feb. 27, 2009, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/USOS/75649, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Nov. 19, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/USOS/75649, “PCT International Search Report,” Nov. 19, 2008, 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Nov. 19, 2008, 5 pgs. |
Adamic et al., “The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog,” Proceedings WWW-2005 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, 2005, Chiba, Japan (16 pages). |
Adar et al., “Implicit structure and dynamics of blogspace,” Proceedings WWW-2004 Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, 2004, New York, NY (8 pages). |
Aliod et al., “A Real World Implementation of Answer Extraction,” Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland (6 pages). |
Bishop, Mike, “ARROW Question/Answering Systems,” Language Computer Corporation, 1999 (3 pages). |
BIZRATE, archived version of www.bizrate.com, Jan. 1999 (22 pages). |
Blum, “Empirical Support for Winnow and Weighted-Majority Algorithms: Results on a Calendar Scheduling Domain,” in Machine Learning, vol. 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 1997 (19 pages). |
Bournellis, Cynthia, “Tracking the hits on Web Sites,” Communications International: vol. 22, Issue 9, London, Sep. 1995 (3 pages). |
Chaum et al., “A Secure and Privacy-Protecting Protocol for Transmitting Personal Information Between Organizations,” A.M. Odlyzko (Ed.): Advances in Cryptology, CRYPTO '86, LNCS 263, 1987 (53 pages). |
Chaum, David L., “Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonymns,” Communication of the ACM, vol. 24, No. 2, 1981 (5 pages). |
Cohen, William W., “Data Integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation language,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 18, No. 3, Jul. 2000, (34 pages). |
Cohn et al., “Active Learning with Statistical Models,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, A1 Access Foundation and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, USA, 1996 (17 pages). |
Dagan et al, “Mistake-Driven Learning in Text Categorization,” in EMNLP '97, 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1997 (9 pages). |
Delahaye Group, “Delahaye Group to Offer Net Bench: High Level Web-Site Qualitative Analysis and Reporting; Netbench Builds on Systems provided by I/PRO and Internet Media Services,” 1995 Business Wire, Inc., May 31, 1995, (3 pages). |
DIALOGIC, www.dialogic.com as archived on May 12, 2000, (34 pages). |
Dillon et al., “Marketing research in a Marketing Environment,” Times Mirror/Mosby College, USA, 1987 (5 pages). |
EWATCH, eWatch's archived web site retrieved from [URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19980522190526/wwww.ewatch.com] on Sep. 8, 2004, archived May 22, 1998 (50 pages). |
Farber, Dave, “IP: eWatch and Cybersleuth,” retrieved from [URL: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200006/msg00090.html] Jun. 29, 2000 (4 pages). |
Freund et al., “Selective Sampling Using the Query by Committee Algorithm,” Machine Learning 28 Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997 (36 pages). |
Glance et al., “Analyzing online disussion for marketing intelligence,” Proceedings WWW-2005 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, Chiba, Japan, 2005 (2 pages). |
Glance et al., “Deriving marketing intelligence from online discussion,” 11th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, IL, Aug. 21-24, 2005 (10 pages). |
Grefenstette et al., “Validating the Coverage of Lexical Resources for Affect Analysis and Automatically Classifying New Words along Semantic Axes,” Chapter X, Mar. 2004 (16 pages). |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “An Intelligent System for Question Answering,” University of Southern California; Modlovan, Dan, Southern Methodist University, 1996 (5 pages). |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “Experiments with Open-Domain Textual Question Asnwering,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist Universtity, 2000 (7 pages). |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “Mining Textual Answers with Knowledge-Based Indicators,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist University, 2000 (4 pages). |
Housley et al., “Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile,” Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2459, Jan. 1999 (121 pages). |
Joachims, Thorsten, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features,” in Machine Learning: ECML-98, Tenth European Conference on Machine Learning, 1998 (7 pages). |
Kahn et al., “Categorizing Web Documents using Competitive Learning; An ingrediant of a Personal Adaptive Agent,” IEEE 1997 (4 pages). |
Katz, Boris, “From Sentence Processing to Information Access on the World Wide Web: START Information Server,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Feb. 27, 1997 (20 pages). |
Kleppner, “Advertising Procedure,” 6th edition, 1977, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 492 (3 pages). |
Kotler, “Marketing Management,” PrenticeHall International Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997 (10 pages). |
Lenz et al., “Question answering with Textual CBR,” Department of Computer Science, Humboldt University Berlin, D-10099 Berlin, 1998 (12 pages). |
Littlestone, Nick, “Learning Quickly When Irrelevant Attributes Abound: A New Linear-threshold Algorithm,” in Machine Learning, vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1988 (34 pages). |
Marlow, “Audience, structure and authority in the weblog community,” International Communication Association Conference, MIT Media Laboratory, New Orleans, LA 2004 (9 pages). |
McCallum et al., “Text Classification by Bootstrapping with the Keywords, EM and Shrinkage,” Just Research and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, circa 1999 (7 pages). |
McLachlan et al., “The EM Algorithm and Extensions,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1997 (301 pages). |
Moldovan et al., “LASSO: A Tool for Surfing the Answer Net,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist University, 1999 (9 pages). |
Nakashima et al., “Information Filtering for the Newspaper,” IEEE 1997 (4 pages). |
Nanno et al., “Automatic collection and monitoring of Japanese Weblogs,” Proceedings WWW-2004 Workshop on the weblogging Ecosystem, 2004, New York, NY (7 pages). |
NETCURRENT, NetCurrent's web site, http://web.archive.org/web/20000622024845/www.netcurrents.com, retrieved on Jan. 17, 2005, archived on Jun. 22, 2000 and Sep. 18, 2000 (17 pages). |
Pang et al., “Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques,” in Proceedings of EMNLP 2002 (8 pages). |
Reguly, “Caveat Emptor Rules on the Internet,” The Globe and Mail (Canada): Report on Business Column, Apr. 10, 1999 (2 pages). |
Reinartz, “Customer Lifetime Value Analysis: An Integrated Empirical Framework for Measurement and Explanation,” dissertation: Apr. 1999 (68 pages). |
Soderland et al., “Customer Satisfaction and Links to Customer Profitability: An Empirical Examination of the Association Between Attitudes and Behavior,” SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, Jan. 1999 (22 pages). |
Thomas, “International Marketing,” International Textbook Company, Scranton, PA 1971 (3 pages). |
Trigaux, Robert, “Cyberwar Erupts Over Free Speech Across Florida, Nation,” Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, May 29, 2000 (4 pages). |
Tull et al., “Marketing Research Measurement and Method,” MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1984 (9 pages). |
Voorhees, Ellen M., “The TREC-8 Question Answering Track Report,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1999 (6 pages). |
Wiebe et al., “Identifying Collocations for Recognizing Opinions,” in proceedings of ACL/EACL '01 Workshop on Collocation, Toulouse, France, Jul. 2001 (9 pages). |
Word of Mouth Research Case Study, “The Trans Fat Issue, Analysis of online consumer conversation to understand how the Oreo lawsuit impacted word-of-mouth on trans fats,” Aug. 16, 2004 (35 pages). |
Yang, “An Evaluation of Statistical Approaches to Text Categorization,” Information Retrieval 1 (1/2) Apr. 10, 1999 (12 pages). |
ZAGAT, www.zagat.com, archived on Apr. 29, 1999 (33 pages). |
ZAGAT, www.zagat.com, archived version of p. 34, Feb. 1999 (1 page). |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Jun. 11, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT International Search Report,” Jun. 11, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Jun. 11, 2008, 5 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/015019, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” Sep. 17, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/15019, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” Sep. 17, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Jul. 3, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT International Search Report,” Jul. 3, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Jul. 3, 2008, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/14955, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/14955, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Jul. 3, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT International Search Report,” Jul. 3, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Jul. 3, 2008, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/1 B/326, PCT/US07/16796, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 17, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/16796, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Feb. 20, 2007, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT International Search Report,” Feb. 20, 2007, 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Feb. 20, 2007, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US06/31569, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Mar. 13, 2008, 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US06/31569, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Mar. 4, 2008, 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Apr. 8, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT International Search Report,” Apr. 8, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Apr. 8, 2008, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20714, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20714, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Apr. 8, 2008, 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” May 6, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT International Search Report,” May 6, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” May 6, 2008, 7 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/17764, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” May 13, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT International Search Report,” May 13, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” May 13, 2008, 5 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal of Copy of International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20713, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” Sep. 8, 2009, 1 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20713, “Written Opinion of the International Search Authority,” May 13, 2008, 5 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/0911 0, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Feb. 20, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT International Search Report,” Feb. 20, 2009, 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Feb. 20, 2009, 4 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Nov. 7, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/21 0, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT International Search Report,” Nov. 7, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Nov. 7, 2008, 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Dec. 5, 2008, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT International Search Report,” Dec. 5, 2008, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Dec. 5, 2008, 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” Jan. 21, 2009, 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT International Search Report,” Jan. 21, 2009, 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Jan. 21, 2009, 13 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11959399 | Dec 2007 | US |
Child | 13682503 | US |