This application is related to U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 11/394,610, entitled “Determining Document Subject by Using Title and Anchor Text of Related Documents,” by Shubin Zhao, filed on Mar. 31, 2006, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
The disclosed embodiments relate generally to fact databases. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments relate to learning objects and facts from documents.
As computers and networks gain popularity, web-based computer documents (“documents”) become a vast source of factual information. Users may look to these documents to get answers to factual questions, such as “what is the capital of Poland” or “what is the birth date of George Washington.” The factual information included in these documents may be extracted and stored in a fact database.
Documents are often generated based on a template. For example, titles of the documents in the wikipedia.org website often follow a pattern of “[SUBJECT]—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,” where the section in square bracket is substituted with the subject of the 24207/11661/DOCS/1631371.6 page. These documents also often represent facts in a structured format. For example, documents in the wikipedia.org website frequently list facts in a table format.
Conventionally, objects (or entities) and related facts described in documents are identified and extracted (or learned) by human editors. This approach is insufficient for mass fact extraction because the vast volume of documents and the rapid increase in the number of available documents make it impractical for human editors to perform the task on any meaningful scale.
Based on the above, there is a need for a way to automatically identify objects and facts in documents.
The above and other needs are met by systems, methods, and computer program products that learn objects and facts from documents. Embodiments of the methods comprise selecting a source object and a source document and identifying a title pattern and a contextual pattern based on the source object and the source document. A set of documents matching the title pattern and the contextual pattern are selected. For each document in the selected set, a name and one or more facts are identified by applying the title pattern and the contextual pattern to the document. Objects are identified or created based on the identified names and associated with the identified facts.
a)-2(d) are block diagrams illustrating embodiments of a data structure for facts within a repository of
e) is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of an alternative data structure for facts and objects.
Embodiments are now described with reference to the figures where like reference numbers indicate identical or functionally similar elements.
System Architecture and Data Structure
Document hosts 102 store documents and provide access to documents. A document is comprised of any machine-readable data including any combination of text, graphics, multimedia content, etc. A document may be encoded in a markup language, such as Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), i.e., a web page, in an interpreted language (e.g., JavaScript) or in any other computer readable or executable format. A document can include one or more hyperlinks to other documents. A typical document will include one or more facts within its content. The facts describe entities, such as real-world or fictional people, places, or things.
A document stored in a document host 102 may be located and/or identified by a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), or Web address, or any other appropriate form of identification and/or location. A document host 102 is implemented by a computer system, and typically includes a server adapted to communicate over the network 104 via networking protocols (e.g., TCP/IP), as well as application and presentation protocols (e.g., HTTP, HTML, SOAP, D-HTML, JAVA®). The documents stored by a host 102 are typically held in a file directory, a database, or other data repository. A host 102 can be implemented in any computing device (e.g., from a PDA or personal computer, a workstation, mini-computer, or mainframe, to a cluster or grid of computers), as well as in any processor architecture or operating system.
Janitors 110 operate to process facts extracted by the importer 108. This processing can include but is not limited to, data cleansing, object merging, and fact induction. In one embodiment, there are a number of different janitors 110 that perform different types of data management operations on the facts. For example, one janitor 110 may traverse some set of facts in the repository 115 to find duplicate facts (that is, facts that convey the same factual information) and merge them. Another janitor 110 may also normalize facts into standard formats. Another janitor 110 may also remove unwanted facts from the repository 115, such as facts related to pornographic content. Other types of janitors 110 may be implemented, depending on the types of data management functions desired, such as translation, compression, spelling or grammar correction, and the like.
Various janitors 110 act on facts to normalize attribute names and values, and delete duplicate and near-duplicate facts so an object does not have redundant information. For example, we might find on one page that Britney Spears' birthday is “Dec. 2, 1981” while on another page that her date of birth is “Dec. 2, 1981.” Birthday and Date of Birth might both be rewritten as “Birthdate” by one janitor and then another janitor might notice that Dec. 2, 1981 and Dec. 2, 1981 are different forms of the same date. It would choose the preferred form, remove the other fact and combine the source lists for the two facts. As a result, one source page for this fact will contain an exact match of the fact while another source page will contain text that is considered synonymous with the fact.
The build engine 112 builds and manages the repository 115. The service engine 114 is an interface for querying the repository 115. The service engine 114's main function is to process queries, score matching objects, and return them to the caller but it is also used by the janitor 110.
The repository 115 stores factual information about entities. The information is extracted from a plurality of documents that are located on document hosts 102. A document from which a particular fact may be extracted is a source document (or “source”) of that particular fact. In other words, a source of a fact includes that fact (or a synonymous fact) within its contents.
The repository 115 contains one or more facts. In one embodiment, the facts are logically organized into “objects,” and each object contains a collection of facts associated with a single entity (i.e., real-world or fictional person, place, or thing). Each fact is associated with exactly one object. One implementation for this association includes in each fact an object ID that uniquely identifies the associated object. In this manner, any number of facts may be associated with an individual object, by including the object ID for that object in the facts. In one embodiment, objects themselves are not physically stored in the repository 115, but rather are defined by the set or group of facts with the same associated object ID, as described below. Further details about facts in the repository 115 are described below, in relation to
Some embodiments operate on the facts and/or objects in different orders than described above. For example, in one embodiment the importer 108 provides facts directly to the build engine 112 and/or repository 115. The janitors 110, in turn, operate on the facts and/or objects in the repository 115. It should also be appreciated that in practice at least some of the components of the data processing system 106 will be distributed over multiple computers, communicating over a network. For example, the repository 115 may be deployed over multiple servers. As another example, the janitors 110 may be located on any number of different computers. For convenience of explanation, however, the components of the data processing system 106 are discussed as though they were implemented on a single computer.
In another embodiment, some or all of document hosts 102 are located on the data processing system 106 instead of being coupled to the data processing system 106 by a network. For example, the importer 108 may import facts from a database that is a part of or associated with the data processing system 106.
a) shows an example format of a data structure for facts within the repository 115, according to some embodiments. As described above, the repository 115 includes facts 204 describing entities such as real-world and fictional people, places, and things. Each fact 204 includes a unique identifier for that fact, such as a fact ID 210. Each fact 204 includes at least an attribute 212 and a value 214. For example, a fact associated with the entity George Washington may include an attribute of “date of birth” and a value of “Feb. 22, 1732.” In one embodiment, all facts are stored as alphanumeric characters since they are extracted from web pages. In another embodiment, facts also can store binary data values. Other embodiments, however, may store fact values as mixed types, or in encoded formats.
As described above, each fact is associated with an object ID 209 that identifies the object with which the fact is associated. Thus, each fact that describes the same entity (such as George Washington), will have the same object ID 209. In one embodiment, the objects are logical concepts that exist as a collection of facts having the same object ID. In another embodiment, objects are stored as units of data in memory, and include references (for example, pointers or IDs) to the facts associated with the object. The logical data structure of a fact can take various forms; in general, a fact is represented by a tuple that includes a fact ID, an attribute, a value, and an object ID. The storage implementation of a fact can be in any underlying physical data structure.
b) shows an example of facts having respective fact IDs of 10, 20, and 30 in the repository 115. Facts 10 and 20 are associated with an object identified by object ID “1.” Fact 10 has an attribute of “Name” and a value of “China.” Fact 20 has an attribute of “Category” and a value of “Country.” Thus, the object identified by object ID “1” has a name fact 205 with a value of “China” and a category fact 206 with a value of “Country.” Fact 30 208 has an attribute of “Property” and a value of “Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.” Thus, the object identified by object ID “2” has a property fact with a fact ID of 30 and a value of “Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.” In the illustrated embodiment, each fact has one attribute and one value. The number of facts associated with an object is not limited; thus while only two facts are shown for the “China” object, in practice there may be dozens, even hundreds of facts associated with a given object. Also, the value fields of a fact need not be limited in size or content. For example, a fact about the economy of “China” with an attribute of “Economy” would have a value including several paragraphs of text, numbers, and perhaps even tables of figures. This content can be formatted, for example, in a markup language. For example, a fact having an attribute “original html” might have a value of the original html text taken from the source web page.
Also, while the illustration of
c) shows an example object reference table 210 that is used in some embodiments. Not all embodiments include an object reference table. The object reference table 210 functions to efficiently maintain the associations between object IDs and fact IDs. In the absence of an object reference table 210, it is also possible to find all facts for a given object ID by querying the repository 115 to find all facts with a particular object ID. While
d) shows an example of a data structure for facts within the repository 115, according to some embodiments, showing an extended format of facts. In this example, the fields include an object reference link 216 to another object. The object reference link 216 can be an object ID of another object in the repository 115, or a reference to the location (e.g., table row) for the object in the object reference table 210. The object reference link 216 allows facts to have as values other objects. For example, for an object associated with the entity “United States,” there may be a fact with the attribute of “president” and the value of “George W. Bush,” with “George W. Bush” being an object having its own facts in the repository 115. In some embodiments, the value field 214 stores the name of the linked object and the link 216 stores the object identifier of the linked object. Thus, this “president” fact would include the value 214 of “George W. Bush”, and an object reference link 216 that contains the object ID for the “George W. Bush” object. In some other embodiments, facts 204 do not include a link field 216 because the value 214 of a fact 204 may store a link to another object.
Each fact 204 also may include one or more metrics 218. A metric provides an indication of the quality of the fact. In some embodiments, the metrics include a confidence level and an importance level. The confidence level indicates the likelihood that the fact is correct. The importance level indicates the relevance of the fact to the object, compared to other facts for the same object. The importance level may optionally be viewed as a measure of how vital a fact is to an understanding of the entity associated with the object.
Each fact 204 includes a list of one or more sources 220 that include the fact and from which the fact was extracted. Each source may be identified by a URL, or Web address, or any other appropriate form of identification and/or location, such as a unique document identifier.
The facts illustrated in
Some embodiments include one or more specialized facts, such as a name fact 207 and a property fact 208. A name fact 207 is a fact that conveys a name for the entity associated with the object in which the fact is included. A name fact 207 includes an attribute 224 of “name” and a value, which is the name of the associated entity. For example, for an object associated with country Spain, a name fact would have the value “Spain.” A name fact 207, being a special instance of a general fact 204, includes the same fields as any other fact 204; it has an attribute, a value, a fact ID, metrics, sources, etc. The attribute 224 of a name fact 207 indicates that the fact is a name fact, and the value is the actual name. The name may be a string of characters. An object may have one or more associated name facts, as many entities can have more than one name. For example, an object associated with Spain may have associated name facts conveying the country's common name “Spain” and the official name “Kingdom of Spain.” As another example, an object associated with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may have associated name facts conveying the agency's acronyms “PTO” and “USPTO” as well as the official name “United States Patent and Trademark Office.” If an object does have more than one associated name fact, one of the name facts may be designated as a primary name and other name facts may be designated as secondary names, either implicitly or explicitly. The name facts associated with an object are also called synonymous names of the object.
A property fact 208 is a fact that conveys a statement about the entity associated with the object. Property facts are generally used for summary information about an object. A property fact 208, being a special instance of a general fact 204, also includes the same fields (such as attribute, value, fact ID, etc.) as other facts 204. The attribute field 226 of a property fact 208 indicates that the fact is a property fact (e.g., attribute is “property”) and the value is a string of text that conveys the statement of interest. For example, for the object associated with Bill Clinton, the value of a property fact may be the text string “Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.” Some objects may have one or more associated property facts while other objects may have no associated property facts. It should be appreciated that the data structures shown in
As described previously, a collection of facts is associated with an object ID of an object. An object may become a null or empty object when facts are disassociated from the object. A null object can arise in a number of different ways. One type of null object is an object that has had all of its facts (including name facts) removed, leaving no facts associated with its object ID. Another type of null object is an object that has all of its associated facts other than name facts removed, leaving only its name fact(s). Alternatively, the object may be a null object only if all of its associated name facts are removed. A null object represents an entity or concept for which the data processing system 106 has no factual information and, as far as the data processing system 106 is concerned, does not exist. In some embodiments, facts of a null object may be left in the repository 115, but have their object ID values cleared (or have their importance set to a negative value). However, the facts of the null object are treated as if they were removed from the repository 115. In some other embodiments, facts of null objects are physically removed from the repository 115.
e) is a block diagram illustrating an alternate data structure 290 for facts and objects in accordance with embodiments of the invention. In this data structure, an object 290 contains an object ID 292 and references or points to facts 294. Each fact includes a fact ID 295, an attribute 297, and a value 299. In this embodiment, an object 290 actually exists in memory 107.
As described above, an object may explicitly exist in the repository 115, or it may exist merely as a collection of facts with a common object ID. Reference is made to particular objects for the purposes of illustration; one of skill in the art will recognize that the systems and methods described herein are applicable to a variety of implementations and that such references are not limiting. When reference is made to a fact being associated with an object, it should be understood that in at least one embodiment a fact is associated with an object by sharing a common object ID with other facts. For example, a fact could be associated with an object of a given type by sharing a common object ID at least with a type fact indicating the given type (or as another example, with a category fact indicating a particular category of object). Furthermore, in various embodiments, facts and objects can be stored in a variety of structures, such as fact and/or object repositories. When reference is made herein to the repository 115, it should be understood that various embodiments may store facts and/or objects in a variety of data structures.
Overview of Methodology
Referring now to
In one embodiment, the steps of the method 300 may be performed by one or more importers 108 as shown in
The flowchart shown in
As described above in relation to
As described above, a document may be encoded in a markup language, such as the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), i.e., a web page, in an interpreted language (e.g., JavaScript) or in any other computer readable or executable format. A document can have one or more titles. One example is a web page encoded in HTML with content about the first President of the United States, George Washington.
The importer 108 selects 310 a source object from the plurality of objects. In one embodiment, the importer 108 gives priority to objects associated with more facts when selecting 310 the source object. In another embodiment, each of the plurality of objects has equal chance of being selected 310.
The importer 108 selects 320 a source document associated with a fact of the source object from the plurality of documents. As described above in relation to
Alternatively, the importer 108 searches for documents containing an object name of the source object and one or more of its facts (or attribute-value pairs) in the plurality of documents. The importer 108 then selects 320 the source document from the search result. For example, for an object with object name “China” and attribute-value pair “Capital-Beijing,” the importer 108 can search for documents containing “China,” “Capital,” and “Beijing.” The importer 108 may specify search criteria such as whether the object name matches document titles and whether the rest of the search terms match document contents. The search may be performed using a search engine, such as a Web search engine.
The importer 108 identifies 330 a title pattern and a contextual pattern based on the source document and the source object. The title pattern is intended to reflect a relationship between a title of the source document (hereinafter called “the document title”) and the object name of the source object (“the source object name”). In one embodiment, the importer 108 determines whether the document title contains the source object name as a substring. A substring is a contiguous sequence of characters taken from a string. If the document title does not contain the source object name as a substring, the importer 108 repeats the above process and selects 320 another document as the source document.
The importer 108 identifies 330 the title pattern by comparing the document title with the source object name. In one embodiment, a title pattern comprises a prefix section, a body section, and a suffix section. A title pattern can be expressed as “%[PREFIX SECTION]% && %[SUFFIX SECTION]%”, where “&&” represents the source object name. For example, the title pattern of a document title “Summary for Microsoft CP—Yahoo! Finance” and an object name “Microsoft CP” is “%Summary for% && %—Yahoo! Finance%”. In this example, the prefix section is “Summary for” and the suffix section is “—Yahoo! Finance”. The body section of the document title is the same as the object name, “Microsoft CP.”
The contextual pattern is a structural pattern in which the source document displays (or presents) facts (or attribute-value pairs). For example, a document can display facts of an object in a table (the contextual pattern) such that the attribute-value pair for a fact appears in the same row. In one embodiment, the importer 108 identifies 330 the contextual pattern by identifying language markups (e.g., HTML markups (or tags)) that define the structural pattern. For example, a web page may contain a list of attributes and values with HTML markup as the following:
The importer 108 can identify 330 the contextual pattern in the source document by matching attribute-value pairs of the source object with content of the source document. The contextual pattern contains the HTML markup (or tag) sequence associated with the matching attribute-value. For example, for an attribute-value pair “Capital-Beijing,” the importer 108 may identify 330 the following contextual pattern in the above web page: “<tr> <td> $$ </td> <td> ££ </td> </tr>”. In this example, “$$” indicates a text block for an attribute and “££” indicates a text block of a corresponding value. The importer 108 may identify 330 multiple contextual patterns in a source document, with each pattern corresponding with a fact of the source object.
The importer 108 selects 340 a set of documents from the plurality of documents based on the title pattern and the contextual pattern. One embodiment of the process for the importer 108 to select 340 the set of documents is further illustrated in the flowchart shown in
In one embodiment, the importer 108 only examines documents within the same domain as the source document when selecting 340 the set of documents. A domain is a group of computers and devices that share a common part of an Internet Protocol (IP) address that identifies (or locates) an organization (or entity) on the Internet. All documents from computers and devices in the group are said to be from the same domain. Documents from the same domain may be stored in one or multiple document hosts 102. The set of documents can include the source document.
Limiting the set of documents to be within the same domain as the source document can be advantageous, especially when the size of the plurality of documents is large. The computational cost of comparing documents with the title pattern and the contextual pattern can become unmanageable as the number of documents grows. Also, because documents within the same domain as the source document are more likely to share the same style as the source document, they are more likely to match the title pattern and the contextual pattern than documents from other domains.
As described above, the importer 108 can identify 330 multiple contextual patterns. In one embodiment, the importer 108 adds 450 a document into the set of documents as long as the document matches the title pattern and any one of the multiple contextual patterns. In another embodiment, the importer 108 adds 450 a document into the set only when the document matches the title pattern and all of the identified contextual patterns.
Referring back to
The identified name tends to be an object name for an object (or entity) described in the document. As described above, the source document contains facts of the source object, and therefore describes the source object. Further, the source object name can be extracted from a title of the source document using the title pattern. Because the title pattern also matches titles of the documents in the selected set, it follows that these documents tend to follow a consistent naming convention (or protocol or standard). For example, titles of web pages containing company profile in Yahoo! finance website follow a common pattern of “%COMPANY NAME% Company Profile—Yahoo! Finance”. Therefore, the name identified by applying the title pattern to a title of the document tends to be an object name for an object described in the document.
Similarly, the identified attribute-value pairs tend to be facts for the object described in the document. As described above, the source document contains facts of the source object matching the contextual pattern. Same as the source document, documents in the selected set match the title pattern and the contextual pattern. Therefore, these documents tend to share a style or format (e.g., displaying facts in a table or list). Because facts of the source object can be extracted from the source document using the contextual pattern, it follows that the attribute-value pairs identified by applying the contextual pattern to content of the document tend to be facts for the object described in the document.
The importer 108 can repeatedly apply the contextual pattern to content of the document to identify 350 (or extract or learn) attribute-value pairs. For example, if the contextual pattern identifies a table entry, the importer 108 may extract attribute-value pairs from that table entry and nearby table entries that match the contextual pattern. In one embodiment, the importer 108 extracts attribute-value pairs that are proximate to each other. By applying such a limitation, the importer 108 can be sure that the identified attribute-value pairs are likely from the same structure (e.g., the same table or list). Alternatively, the importer 108 can parse the document to identify 350 attribute-value pairs from all structures that match the contextual pattern.
In one embodiment, the importer 108 examines the quality of the identified attribute-value pairs by matching their attributes with a group of valid attributes (called “a white attribute list”). The identified contextual pattern may be general (e.g., a table row, a list item), and therefore the attribute-value pairs identified by applying the general contextual pattern may be over-inclusive. If the match fails to meet a certain threshold value (percentage or absolute value), the importer 108 determines that the identified attribute-value pairs are low in quality, and may disregard them entirely or only keep those that match. The white attribute list may include attributes identified in the source document and/or attributes collected from other sources (e.g., compiled by human editors). Similarly, the importer 108 may match the identified attribute-value pairs with a group of invalid attributes (called “a black attribute list”), and disregard them if the match exceeds a certain threshold value.
For each document in the selected set, the importer 108 associates 360 the attribute-value pairs identified in the document with an object with the identified name. In one embodiment, the importer 108 creates a new object, assigns the new object with the identified name, and associates 360 it with the identified attribute-value pairs. The importer 108 then passes the newly created object to a janitor 110 to incorporate the object into the fact repository 115. In one embodiment, the janitor 110 searches in the fact repository 115 for an object associated with the identified name. If no such object exists, the janitor 110 adds the newly created object into the fact repository 115. Otherwise, the janitor 110 merges the newly created object with the existing object in the fact repository 115. If the janitor 110 determines that the existing object does not contain some of the attribute-value pairs identified in the document, it adds these attribute-value pairs into the fact repository 115 and associates 360 them with the existing object. If the existing object and the newly created object contain duplicated attribute-value pairs (e.g., same attribute and same value), the janitor 110 can optionally add the document as a source of this fact of the existing object. If the existing object and the newly created object contain inconsistent attribute-value pairs (e.g., same attribute but different value), the janitor 110 can determine a confidence value for each of the attribute-value pairs, and set the one with higher value as the value of the fact for the existing object. In other embodiments, the importer 108 only creates a new object if no object associated with the identified name is located in the fact repository 115.
In one embodiment, the fact repository 115 can have objects associated with the same object name (or name fact value). For example, two objects can both have the name “New York,” one representing the New York City and the other representing a movie with the title “New York.” In order to locate the right object as described in the document, and not an object that happens to share the same object name, the janitor 110 searches in the fact repository 115 for an object associated with the identified name and at least one identified attribute-value pair, and merges the newly created object with the object found in the manner detailed above.
It is noted that in alternative embodiments, the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) may apply some normalization rules to the identified names to standardize its format before identifying corresponding objects. The importer 108 may also apply these normalization rules to the identified attribute-value pairs before associating 360 them with objects. Examples of the normalization rules include removal of punctuation, such as removing commas in a string, conversion of uppercase characters in a string to corresponding lowercase characters, such as from “America” to “america,” and stop word removal, such as removing stop words such as “the” and “of” from a string. For example, after applying the above normalization rules, an object name of “Charles Chaplin” becomes “charles chaplin”.
In one embodiment, the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) compares the identified names with content of a black list. The black list contains texts that are not entity names (e.g., adjectives such as “beautiful”, and stop words such as “the”). Therefore, if there are matches between the identified name and the black list, the importer 108 determines that this name is not a valid entity name, and therefore does not create an object for it.
In one embodiment, the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) compares the learned object names with content of a white list. The white list contains some entity names (e.g., “United Nation,” “John Lennon”). The white list can be compiled by human editors or extracted from reputable sources (e.g., the Encyclopedia Britannica Online). Therefore, if there are matches between the identified name and the white list, the importer 108 determines that the identified name is a proper object name.
The importer 108 can repeat the process described above for a different source object and/or a different source document. As a result, the importer 108 can learn objects and associated facts from the plurality of documents.
Example Process
The method 300 is further illustrated by an example shown in
Document D2 (“D2”) is entitled “Canada—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” Content of D2 includes the following structured text:
Document D3 (“D3”) is entitled “Help:Contents—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” and does not contain text structured as displayed above. Document D4 (“D4”) is entitled “Isaac Asimov—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” Content of D4 includes the following structured text:
Document D5 (“D5”) is entitled “Fundraising—Wikimedia Foundation” and does not contain text structured as displayed above.
Content of documents D1-D5 can be organized in HTML structures such as tables and lists in order to be displayed as structured text as illustrated in
The importer 108 selects 310 object O1 as the source object. Because the source of both facts associated with O1 is “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington,” the URL of D1, the importer 108 selects 320 D1 as the source document.
The importer 108 identifies 330 a title pattern by comparing the title of the source document D1 (“George Washington—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”) with the object name of the source object O1 (“George Washington”). The importer 108 determines that the prefix section of the title pattern is empty and the suffix section is “—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”. Therefore, the identified title pattern is “%% && %—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia %”.
The importer 108 identifies 330 a contextual pattern by matching an attribute-value pair of the source object O1 (Born-Feb. 22, 1732) with the content of the source document D1 (“ . . . <li><b> Born </b> Feb. 22, 1732 </li> . . . ”). The importer 108 identifies 330 the following contextual pattern: “<li><b>$$</b>££</li>”.
The importer 108 selects 340 a set of documents based on the identified title pattern (“%% && %—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia %”) and the identified contextual pattern (“<li><b>$$</b>££</li>”). The importer 108 applies 410 the title pattern to titles of D1-D5 and determines 420 that titles of D1-D4 match with the title pattern. The importer 108 applies 430 the contextual pattern to contents of D1-D4, and determines 440 that the contents of D1, D2, and D4 match with the contextual pattern. As a result, the importer 108 adds 450 D1, D2, and D4 to the selected set of documents. It is noted that the selected set includes the source document D1.
The importer 108 applies the identified title pattern (“%% && %—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia %”) and contextual pattern (“<li><b>$$</b>££</li>”) to each document in the selected set (D1, D2, and D4) to identify 350 names and attribute-value pairs. For D1, the importer 108 identifies 350 the name “George Washington” and attribute value pairs “Born-Feb. 22, 1732,” “Died-Dec. 14, 1799,” and “Spouse-Martha Dandridge Custis Washington.” For D2, the importer 108 identifies the name “Canada” and attribute-value pairs “Capital-Ottawa,” “Area-9,984,670 km2,” and “GDP-$1.105 trillion.” Similarly, for D4, the importer 108 identifies the name “Isaac Asimov” and attribute-value pairs “Born-Jan. 2, 1920” and “Died-Apr. 6, 1992.”
The importer 108 (or the janitor 110) identifies (or creates) objects with the identified names and associates 360 the identified attribute-value pairs with the objects. For D1, because O1 is already associated with the attribute-value pair “Born-Feb. 22, 1732,” the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) associates 360 the attribute-value pairs “Died-Dec. 14, 1799” and “Spouse-Martha Dandridge Custis Washington” with O1 and adds D1 as their source. For D2, the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) creates an object with object name “Canada,” associates 360 it with attribute-value pairs “Capital-Ottawa,” “Area-9,984,670 km2,” and “GDP-$1.105 trillion,” and adds D2 as their source. Similarly, for D4, the importer 108 (or the janitor 110) creates an object with object name “Isaac Asimov,” associates 360 it with attribute-value pairs “Born-Jan. 2, 1920” and “Died-Apr. 6, 1992,” and adds D4 as their source.
In one embodiment, instead of selecting 320 a source document based on facts of the identified source object, the importer 108 can first select a source document and then select a source object based on the subject of the source document. For example, the importer 108 can first identify a title pattern of the selected source document, determine an object name based on the document title and the title pattern, and select a source object associated with the object name. The importer 108 can then identify 330 a contextual pattern as described above. If the importer 108 fails to select such a source object or fails to identify 330 a contextual pattern, it can repeat the process and select a different source document.
The importer 108 can identify a title pattern of the source document by analyzing the document title of the source document and anchor texts of documents linking to the source document. Detailed description and embodiments of identifying a title pattern for the source document can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/394,610, entitled “Determining Document Subject by Using Title and Anchor Text of Related Documents,” filed on Mar. 31, 2006, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
It is noted that the importer 108 can identify 330 more than one contextual pattern for the source document and the source object. For example, some of the attribute-value pairs may be in a list in the source document, and others may be in a table in the source document. In some embodiments, the importer 108 can select 340 a set of documents for each of the identified contextual patterns.
It should be appreciated that the process described above may be performed at another time for other purposes, such as learning images and other media data from semi-structured text and verifying the quality of the plurality of documents. The process may be performed as needed or at scheduled intervals. Furthermore, the process may be performed for other objects in the fact repository 115.
Reference in the specification to “one embodiment” or to “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiments is included in at least one embodiment of the invention. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.
Some portions of the above are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps (instructions) leading to a desired result. The steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical, magnetic or optical signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared and otherwise manipulated. It is convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like. Furthermore, it is also convenient at times, to refer to certain arrangements of steps requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities as modules or code devices, without loss of generality.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining” or “displaying” or “determining” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
Certain aspects of the present invention include process steps and instructions described herein in the form of an algorithm. It should be noted that the process steps and instructions of the present invention can be embodied in software, firmware or hardware, and when embodied in software, can be downloaded to reside on and be operated from different platforms used by a variety of operating systems.
The present invention also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.
The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may also be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description below. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language. It will be appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the present invention as described herein, and any references below to specific languages are provided for disclosure of enablement and best mode of the present invention.
While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to a preferred embodiment and several alternate embodiments, it will be understood by persons skilled in the relevant art that various changes in form and details can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
Finally, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter. Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the following claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5010478 | Deran | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5133075 | Risch | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5347653 | Flynn et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5440730 | Elmasri et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5475819 | Miller et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5519608 | Kupiec | May 1996 | A |
| 5546507 | Staub | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5560005 | Hoover et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5574898 | Leblang et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5675785 | Hall et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5680622 | Even | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5694590 | Thuraisingham et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5701470 | Joy et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5717911 | Madrid et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5717951 | Yabumoto | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5724571 | Woods | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5778373 | Levy et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5778378 | Rubin | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5787413 | Kauffman et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5793966 | Amstein et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5802299 | Logan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815415 | Bentley et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5819210 | Maxwell, III et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5819265 | Ravin et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822743 | Gupta et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5838979 | Hart et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5909689 | Van Ryzin | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920859 | Li | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5943670 | Prager | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5956718 | Prasad et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5974254 | Hsu | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5987460 | Niwa et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6018741 | Howland et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6038560 | Wical | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044366 | Graffe et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6052693 | Smith et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6064952 | Imanaka et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6073130 | Jacobson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078918 | Allen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6112203 | Bharat et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112210 | Nori et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6122647 | Horowitz et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6134555 | Chadha et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6138270 | Hsu | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6182063 | Woods | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6202065 | Wills | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6212526 | Chaudhuri et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6240546 | Lee et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6263328 | Coden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6263358 | Lee et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6266805 | Nwana et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6289338 | Stoffel et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6311194 | Sheth et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314555 | Ndumu et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6327574 | Kramer et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6349275 | Schumacher et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6377943 | Jakobsson | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6397228 | Lamburt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6438543 | Kazi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6470330 | Das et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473898 | Waugh et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6487495 | Gale et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6502102 | Haswell et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6519631 | Rosenschein et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6556991 | Borkovsky | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6565610 | Wang et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6567846 | Garg et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6567936 | Yang et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6572661 | Stern | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6578032 | Chandrasekar et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584464 | Warthen | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584646 | Fujita | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6594658 | Woods | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6606625 | Muslea et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6606659 | Hegli et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6609123 | Cazemier et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6636742 | Torkki et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6643641 | Snyder | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6665659 | Logan | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6665666 | Brown et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6665837 | Dean et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6684205 | Modha et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6693651 | Biebesheimer et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6704726 | Amouroux | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6738767 | Chung et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6745189 | Schreiber | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6754873 | Law et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6763496 | Hennings et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6799176 | Page | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6804667 | Martin | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6820081 | Kawai et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6820093 | de la Huerga | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6823495 | Vedula et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6832218 | Emens et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6845354 | Kuo et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6850896 | Kelman et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6868411 | Shanahan | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6873982 | Bates et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6873993 | Charlesworth et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6886005 | Davis | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6886010 | Kostoff | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6901403 | Bata et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6904429 | Sako et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6957213 | Yuret | Oct 2005 | B1 |
| 6963880 | Pingte et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6965900 | Srinivasa et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 7003506 | Fisk et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7003522 | Reynar et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7003719 | Rosenoff et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7007228 | Carro | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7013308 | Tunstall-Pedoe | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7020662 | Boreham et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7043521 | Eitel | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7051023 | Kapur et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7076491 | Tsao | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7080073 | Jiang et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7080085 | Choy et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7100082 | Little et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7143099 | Lecheler-Moore et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7146536 | Bingham et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7158980 | Shen | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7162499 | Lees et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7165024 | Glover et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7174504 | Tsao | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7181471 | Ibuki et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7194380 | Barrow et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7197449 | Hu et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7216073 | Lavi et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7233943 | Modha et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7260573 | Jeh et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 7263565 | Tawara et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7277879 | Varadarajan | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7302646 | Nomiyama et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7305380 | Hoelzle et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7325160 | Tsao | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7363312 | Goldsack | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7376895 | Tsao | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7398461 | Broder et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7409381 | Steel et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7412078 | Kim | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7418736 | Ghanea-Hercock | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7472182 | Young et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7483829 | Murakami et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7493308 | Bair, Jr. et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7493317 | Geva | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7587387 | Hogue | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7644076 | Ramesh et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7672971 | Betz et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7685201 | Zeng et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7698303 | Goodwin et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7716225 | Dean et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
| 7747571 | Boggs | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7756823 | Young et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7797282 | Kirshenbaum et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
| 7885918 | Statchuk | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7917154 | Fortescue et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7953720 | Rohde et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
| 8024281 | Proctor et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8065290 | Hogue | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8108501 | Birnie et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 20010021935 | Mills | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20020022956 | Ukrainczyk et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020038307 | Obradovic et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020042707 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065845 | Naito et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073115 | Davis | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020083039 | Ferrari et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087567 | Spiegler et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107861 | Clendinning et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147738 | Reader | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169770 | Kim et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174099 | Raj et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178448 | Te Kiefte et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194172 | Schreiber | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030018652 | Heckerman et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030058706 | Okamoto et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030069880 | Harrison et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078902 | Leong et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030088607 | Ruellan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097357 | Ferrari et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120644 | Shirota | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120675 | Stauber et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126102 | Borthwick | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126152 | Rajak | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030149567 | Schmitz et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030149699 | Tsao | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154071 | Shreve | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030167163 | Glover et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030177110 | Okamoto et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030182310 | Charnock et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195872 | Senn | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195877 | Ford et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030196052 | Bolik et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030204481 | Lau | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030208354 | Lin et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040003067 | Ferrin | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040015481 | Zinda | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024739 | Copperman et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049503 | Modha et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040059726 | Hunter et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040064447 | Simske et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040069880 | Samelson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088292 | Dettinger et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040107125 | Guheen et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122844 | Malloy et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122846 | Chess et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040123240 | Gerstl et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040128624 | Arellano et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040143600 | Musgrove et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153456 | Charnock et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167870 | Wakefield et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167907 | Wakefield et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167911 | Wakefield et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040177015 | Galai et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040177080 | Doise et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199923 | Russek | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243552 | Titemore et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243614 | Boone et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255237 | Tong | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260979 | Kumai | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040267700 | Dumais et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268237 | Jones et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050055365 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050076012 | Manber et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050080613 | Colledge et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086211 | Mayer | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086222 | Wang et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086251 | Hatscher et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097150 | McKeon et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108630 | Wasson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125311 | Chidiac et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149576 | Marmaros et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149851 | Mittal | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050187923 | Cipollone | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050188217 | Ghanea-Hercock | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240615 | Barsness et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050256825 | Dettinger et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060036504 | Allocca et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060041597 | Conrad et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060047691 | Humphreys et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060047838 | Chauhan | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060053171 | Eldridge et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060053175 | Gardner et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064411 | Gross et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074824 | Li | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074910 | Yun et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085465 | Nori et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112110 | Maymir-Ducharme et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123046 | Doise et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060129843 | Srinivasa et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060136585 | Mayfield et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143227 | Helm et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143603 | Kalthoff et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060152755 | Curtis et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167991 | Heikes et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224582 | Hogue | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060238919 | Bradley | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242180 | Graf et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248045 | Toledano et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248456 | Bender et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060253418 | Charnock et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259462 | Timmons | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277169 | Lunt et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060288268 | Srinivasan et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293879 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005593 | Self et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070005639 | Gaussier et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070016890 | Brunner et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038610 | Omoigui | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070043708 | Tunstall-Pedoe | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055656 | Tunstall-Pedoe | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073768 | Goradia | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094246 | Dill et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100814 | Lee et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070130123 | Majumder | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143282 | Betz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143317 | Hogue et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150800 | Betz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198451 | Kehlenbeck et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198480 | Hogue et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198481 | Hogue et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198503 | Hogue et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198577 | Betz et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198598 | Betz et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198600 | Betz | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203867 | Hogue et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208773 | Tsao | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271268 | Fontoura et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080071739 | Kumar et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080104019 | Nath | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006359 | Liao | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090119255 | Frank et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 5-174020 | Jul 1993 | JP |
| 11-265400 | Sep 1999 | JP |
| 2002-157276 | May 2002 | JP |
| 2002-540506 | Nov 2002 | JP |
| 2003-281173 | Oct 2003 | JP |
| WO 0127713 | Apr 2001 | WO |
| WO 2004114163 | Dec 2004 | WO |
| WO 2006104951 | Oct 2006 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Zhao et al., Corroborate and Learn Facts from the Web, Aug. 2007, AMC. |
| Agichtein, E., et al., “Snowball Extracting Relations from Large Plain-Text Collections,” Columbia Univ. Computer Science Dept. Technical Report CUCS-033-99, Dec. 1999, pp. 1-13. |
| Brill, E., et al., “An Analysis of the AskMSR Question-Answering System,” Proceedings of the Conference of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Jul. 2002, pp. 257-264. |
| Brin, S., Extracting Patterns and Relations from the World Wide Web, 1999, 12 pages. |
| Brin, S., et al., “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine,” 7th Int'l World Wide Web Conference, Brisbane, Australia, Apr. 14-18, 1998, pp. 1-26. |
| Bunescu, R., et al., “Using Encyclopedia Knowledge for Named Entity Disambiguation,” Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas, retrieved from internet Dec. 28, 2006, 8 pages. |
| Chang, C., et al., “IEPAD: Information Extraction Based on Pattern Discovery,” WWW 10 '01, ACM, May 1-5, 2001, pp. 681-688. |
| Chu-Carroll, J., et al., “A Multi-Strategy and Multi-Source Approach to Question Answering,” 2006, 8 pages. |
| Craswell, N., et al., “Effective Site Finding using Link Anchor Information,” SIGIR '01, Sep. 9-12, 2001, pp. 250-257. |
| Dean, J., et al., “MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters,” OSDI, 2004, pp. 1-13. |
| Dong, X., et al., “Reference Reconciliation in Complex Information Spaces,” SIGACM-SIGMOD, 2005, 12 pages. |
| Downey, D., et al., “Learning Text Patterns for Web Information Extraction and Assessment,” American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 6 pages. |
| Etzioni, O., et al., “Web-scale Information Extraction in KnowItAll (Preliminary Results),” WWW2004, ACM May 17-20, 2004, 11 pages. |
| Freitag, D., et al., “Boosted Wrapper Induction,” American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2000, 7 pages. |
| Gao, X., et al., “Learning Information Extraction Patterns from Tabular Web Pages Without Manual Labelling,” Proceedings of IEEE/WIC Int'l Conf. on Web Intelligence (WI'03), Oct. 13-17, 2003, pp. 495-498. |
| Gray, R.M., “Entropy and Information Theory,” Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1990, pp. 17-46. |
| Guha, R., “Object Co-Identification on the Semantic Web,” WWW2004, ACM, May 17-22, 2004, 9 pages. |
| Guha, R., et al., “Disambiguating People in Search,” World Wide Web Conference, May 17-22, 2004, 9 pages. |
| Haveliwala, T.H., “Topic-Sensitive PageRank,” Proceeding of the 11th Int'l World Wide Web Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 7-11, 2002, pp. 1-23. |
| Hogue, A. W., Tree Pattern Inference and Matching for Wrapper Induction on the World Wide Web, Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jun. 2004, pp. 3-106. |
| “Information Entropy,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved on May 3, 2006, pp. 1 -9. |
| “Information Theory,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,: Retrieved on May 3, 2006, pp. 1-12. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2007/61156, mailed Feb. 11, 2008, 7 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2006/019807, mailed Dec. 18, 2006, 4 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2006/07639, mailed Sep. 13, 2006, 6 pages. |
| Jeh, G., et al., “Scaling Personalized Web Search,” Proceedings of the 12th Int'l World Wide Web Conference, Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, 2003, pp. 1-24. |
| Ji, H., et al., “Re-Ranking Algorithms for Name Tagging,” Workshop on Computationally Hard Problems and Joint Inference in Speech and Language Processing, Jun. 2006, 8 pages. |
| Jones, R., et al., Bootstrapping for Text Learning Tasks, 1999, 12 pages. |
| Kolodner, J., “Indexing and Retrieval Strategies for Natural Language Fact Retrieval,” ACM Trans. Database Syst. 8.3., Sep. 1983, 434-464. |
| Kosseim, L., et al., “Answer Formulation for Question-Answering,” 11 pages, Oct. 1, 2007. |
| Liu, B. et al., “Mining Data Records in Web Pages,” Conference 2000, ACM, 2000, pp. 1-10. |
| MacKay, D.J.C., “Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms,” Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 22-33, 138-140. |
| Mann, G. et al., “Unsupervised Personal Name Disambiguation,” Proceedings of the Seventy Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL, 2003, 8 pages. |
| McCallum, A., et al., “Object Consolidation by Graph Partitioning with a Conditionally-Trained Distance Metric,” SIGKDD 03, ACM, Aug. 24-27, 2003, 6 pages. |
| Mihalcea, R., et al., PageRank on Semantic Networks, with Application to Word Sense Disambiguation, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Aug. 23-27, 2004, 7 pages. |
| Mihalcea, R., et al., “TextRank: Bringing Order into Texts,” Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Jul. 2004, 8 pages. |
| Page, L., et al., “The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web,” Stanford Digital Libraries Working Paper, 1998, pp. 1-17. |
| Pawson, D., “Sorting and Grouping,” www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/sect2/N6280.html>, Feb. 7, 2004, pp. 1-19. |
| Prager, J. et al., “IBM's Piquant in TREC2003,” 2003, 10 pages. |
| Prager, J., et al., “Question Answering Using Constraint Satisfaction: QA-by-Dossier-with-Constraints,” 2004, 8 pages. |
| Ramakrishnan, G., et al., “Is Question Answering an Acquired Skill?”WWW2004, ACM May 17, 2004, pp. 111-120. |
| Richardson, M., et al., “Beyond Page Rank: Machine Learning for Static Ranking,” International World Wide Web Conference Committee, May 23, 2006, 9 pages. |
| Richardson, M., et al., “The Intelligent Surfer: Probabilistic Combination of Link and Content Information in PageRank,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 14, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002, 8 pages. |
| Rioloff, E., et al., “Learning Dictionaries for Information Extraction by Multi-Level Bootstrapping,” American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1999, 6 pages. |
| Shannon, C.E., et al., “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, Jul., Oct. 1948, pp. 1-55. |
| Sun Microsystems, “Attribute Names,” http://java.sun.com/products/jndi/tutorial/basics/directory/attrnames.html>, Feb. 17, 2004, pp. 1-2. |
| Wang, Y., et al., “C4-2: Combining Link and Contents in Clustering Web Search to Improve Information Interpretation,” The University of Tokyo, 2002, , pp. 1-9. |
| Cover, T.M., et al., “Elements of Information Theory,” Wiley-InterScience, New York, NY, 1991, pp. 12-23. |
| Gigablast, Web/Directory, http://www.gigablast.com/?c=dmoz3, printed Aug. 24, 2010, 1 page. |
| Gilster, P., “Get Fast Answers, Easily,” The News Observer, May 14, 2003, 2 pages. |
| Hsu, C. et al., “Finite-State Transducers for Semi-Structured Text Mining,” IJCAI-99 Workshop on Text Mining: Foundations, Techniques and Applications, 1999, 12 pages. |
| Iiyas, I. et al., “Rank-aware Query Optimization,” SIGMOD 2004, Jun. 13-18, 2004, 12 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2006/010965, mailed Jul. 5, 2006, 4 pages. |
| Kosala, R., et al, “Web Mining Research: A Survey,” SIGKDD Explorations, vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 1, Jul. 2000, 15 pages. |
| Lin, J. et al., Question Answering from the Web Using Knowledge Annotation and Knowledge Mining Techniques, CIKM '03, Nov. 3-8, 2003, 8 pages. |
| Nyberg, E. et al., “The JAVELIN Question-Answering System at TREC 2003: A Multi-Strategy Approach with Dynamic Planning,” TREC 2003, 9 pages. |
| Ogden, W. et al., “Improving Cross-Language Text Retrieval with Human Interactions,” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE 2000, 9 pages. |
| Plaisant, C. et al. “Interface and Data Architecture for Query Preview in Networked Information Systems,” ACM Transaction on Information Systems, vol. 17, Issue 3, Jul. 1999, 28 pages. |
| Wirzenius, Lars, “C Preprocessor Trick for Implementing Similar Data Types,” Jan. 17, 2000, pp. 1-9. |
| Andritsos, Information-Theoretic Tools for Mining Database Structure from Large Data Sets, ACM SIGMOD, Jun. 13-18, 2004, 12 pgs. |
| Chen, A Scheme for Inference Problems Using Rough Sets and Entropy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3642/2005, Regina, Canada, Aug. 31-Sep. 3, 2005, pp. 558-567. |
| Dean, Using Design Recovery Techniques to Transform Legacy Systems, Software Maintenance, Nov. 7-9, 2001, Proceedings, IEEE International Conference, 10 pgs. |
| Etzioni, Unsupervised Named-Entity Extraction from the Web: An Experimental Study, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA, Feb. 28, 2005, 42 pgs. |
| Google, Canadian Patent Application 2610208, Office Action, Sep. 21, 2011, 3 pgs. |
| Google, European Patent Application 06784449.8, Office Action, Mar. 26, 2012, 7 pgs. |
| Google, Japanese Patent Application 2008-504204, Office Action, Oct. 12, 2011, 4 pgs. |
| Koeller, Approximate Matching of Textual Domain Attributes for Information Source Integration, IQIS '05 Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Information Source Integration, Jun. 17, 2005, 10 pgs. |
| Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “normalize” as “to make conform to or reduce to a norm or standard”, date: 1865, 2 pages. |
| Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “value” as “a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement”, date: 1300, 2 pages. |
| Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines “normalize” as “adjust number within specific range”, May 1, 2002, 4 pages. |
| Microsoft Computer Dictionary Defines “quantity” as a “number”, May 1, 2002, 4 pages. |
| Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines “value” as “a quantity”, May 1, 2002, 4 pages. |
| Nadeau, Unsupervised named-Entity Recognition: Generating Gazetteers and Resolving Ambiguity, Inst. for Information Technology, National Research Council Canada, Gatineau and Ottawa, Canada, Aug. 1, 2006, 12 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Apr. 23, 2013, 21 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/302,755, filed Mar. 25, 2012, 15 pgs. |
| Google Inc., Office Action, CA 2603085, Sep. 18, 2012, 2 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/549,361, filed Mar. 6, 2013, 13 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/603,354, filed Jan. 9, 2013, 5 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/364,244, filed Jan. 30, 2013, 8 pgs. |
| Shamsi, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/171,296, filed Apr. 3, 2013, 7 pgs. |
| Betz, Examiner's Answer, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,688, filed Jul. 8, 2010, 18 pgs. |
| Betz, Examiner's Answer, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,414, filed Jan. 24, 2011, 31 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Apr. 16, 2009, 7 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Jul. 1, 2010, 14 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/341,069, filed Sep. 8, 2008, 6 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,981, filed Aug. 11, 2011, 7 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,981, filed Apr. 26, 2011, 11 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Aug. 13, 2007, 12 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed May 17, 2007, 12 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Jul. 23, 2008, 11 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Dec. 26, 2007, 12 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Jan. 27, 2009, 11 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,740, filed Apr. 30, 2008, 14 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,688, filed Mar. 18, 2009, 13 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,688, filed Oct. 29, 2009, 11 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Jan. 8, 2010, 17 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed May 9, 2008, 20 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Jan. 17, 2008, 16 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Oct. 17, 2007, 14 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Oct. 17, 2008, 17 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Jun. 18, 2007, 13 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,765, filed Apr. 28, 2009. 16 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/341,069, filed Apr. 1, 2008, 8 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,414, filed Mar. 5, 2010, 24 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,414, filed Sep. 15, 2009, 16 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Apr. 1, 2008, 14 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Aug. 4, 2010, 19 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Feb. 8, 2011, 22 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Jul. 8, 2011, 13 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Apr. 11, 2012, 15 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Nov. 12, 2008, 11 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 1/394,552, filed Jan. 13, 2010, 15 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Mar. 13, 2009, 12 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Sep. 24, 2012, 21 pgs. |
| Betz, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,981, filed Dec. 9, 2010, 12 pgs. |
| Hogue, Examiner's Answer, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed Oct. 3, 2011, 23 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/907,689, filed Apr. 30, 2009, 8 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Jan. 6, 2012, 12 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Apr. 27, 2012, 7 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/546,578, filed Jan. 6, 2011, 8 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/546,578, filed Jul. 12, 2011, 10 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/206,457, filed Mar. 14, 2012, 9 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/907,689, filed Oct. 3, 2008, 13 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,689, Apr. 9, 2008, 11 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,689, filed Jun. 21, 2007, 9 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,689, Nov. 27, 2007, 10 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed Dec. 7, 2007, 13 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed Jul. 13, 2010, 12 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, Aug. 17, 2009, 14 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, Nov. 17, 2010, 14 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed May 18, 2007, 9 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed Jul. 22, 2008, 18 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142 748, filed Aug. 23, 2007, 13 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,748, filed Jan. 27, 2009, 17 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Jun. 3, 2011, 18 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Aug. 4, 2010, 20 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Feb. 8, 2011, 14 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed May 11, 2009, 18 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Feb. 19, 2010, 20 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Mar. 21, 2008, 15 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Oct. 27, 2009, 20 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/356,837, filed Sep. 30, 2008, 20 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Mar. 1, 2012, 25 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Mar. 3, 2011, 15 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Jan. 5, 2009, 21 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Jun. 8 2009, 14 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Sep. 13, 2010, 13 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Jun. 24, 2011, 14 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Dec. 28, 2009, 11 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/399,857, filed Mar. 31, 2008, 23 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/546,578, filed Aug. 4, 2010, 10 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/206,457, filed Oct. 28, 2011, 6 pgs. |
| Hogue, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/549,361, filed Oct. 4, 2012, 18 pgs. |
| Laroco, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed May 13, 2011, 8 pgs. |
| Laroco, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Sep. 28, 2011, 8 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Aug. 1, 2008, 15 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Aug. 13, 2009, 16 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Nov. 17, 2010, 20 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Feb. 24, 2010, 17 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/551,657, filed Jan. 28, 2009, 17 pgs. |
| Rohde, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Dec. 23, 2010, 8 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed May 1, 2008, 21 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Jun. 9, 2010, 11 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Oct. 15, 2008, 22 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Aug. 27, 2009, 13 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Apr. 28, 2009, 9 pgs. |
| Rohde, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,690, filed Sep. 28, 2007, 17 pgs. |
| Shamsi, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/781,891, filed Oct. 25, 2010, 7 pgs. |
| Shamsi, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/781,891, filed May 27, 2010, 6 pgs. |
| Shamsi, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/781,891, filed Nov. 16, 2009, 10 pgs. |
| Vespe, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,217, filed Aug. 27, 2012, 11 pgs. |
| Vespe, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/745,605, filed Jun. 13, 2011, 9 pgs. |
| Vespe, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/745,605, filed Sep. 22, 2011, 9 pgs. |
| Vespe, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/745,605, filed Mar. 28, 2012, 10 pgs. |
| Vespe, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,217, filed Sep. 10, 2010, 14 pgs. |
| Vespe, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,217, filed Jan. 26, 2012, 12 pgs. |
| Vespe, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/686,217, filed Mar. 26, 2010, 13 pgs. |
| Vespe, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/745,605, filed Apr. 8, 2010, 15 pgs. |
| Vespe, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/745,605, filed Jul. 30, 2009, 17 pgs. |
| Zhao, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,610, filed May 11, 2009, 15 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,853, filed Oct. 2, 2009, 10 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,853, filed Sep. 5, 2008, 9 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,853, filed Mar. 17, 2009, 9 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,853, filed Jan. 25, 2008, 7 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,610, filed Apr. 1, 2008, 18 pgs. |
| Zhao, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,610, filed Nov. 13, 2008, 18 pgs. |
| Betz, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,552, filed Oct. 21, 2013, 22 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/097,688, filed Nov. 19, 2013, 17 pgs. |
| Betz, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/302,755, filed Aug. 28, 2013, 6 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/549,361, filed Oct. 2, 2013, 9 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/549,361, filed Jun. 26, 2013, 8 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/603,354, filed Nov. 12, 2013, 9 pgs. |
| Hogue, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/603,354, filed Jun. 26, 2013, 8 pgs. |
| Laroco, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/364,244, filed Aug. 6, 2013, 6 pgs. |
| Laroco, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/364,244, Dec. 19, 2013, 5 pgs. |
| Shamsi, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/171,296, filed Nov. 4, 2013, 29 pgs. |