The present invention relates generally to the field of electronic commerce, and more specifically to a method and system for generating listing recommendations to a user of a network-based commerce system.
More and more Internet users are realizing the ease and convenience of buying and selling online via a network-based commerce system. Certain such commerce systems are focused on person-to-person trading, and collectors, hobbyists, small dealers, unique listing seekers, bargain hunters, and other consumers, are able to buy and sell millions of listings at various online shopping sites. Such systems also support business-to-person and business-to-business commerce.
The success of a networked-based commerce system may depend upon its ability to provide a user-friendly environment in which buyers and sellers can conduct business efficiently. Current network-based commerce systems have certain limitations in the manner in which they present information to users.
According to one aspect of the invention, there is provided a method to facilitate generating listing recommendations to a user of a network-based commerce system. In one embodiment, the method includes identifying a term associated with a user interaction in a network-based commerce system. The method further includes generating a recommendation query including the identified term. In addition, the method includes running the recommendation query against a plurality of listings hosted by the network-based commerce system to identify a recommendation. Moreover, the method includes presenting the recommendation to a user of the network-based commerce system.
Other features of the invention will be apparent from the accompanying drawings and from the detailed description that follows.
The invention is now described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying diagrammatic drawings in which like reference numerals are used to indicate the same or similar features, unless otherwise indicated.
A method and system automatically to recommend listings in a network-based commerce system based on past user behaviour is described. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the invention may be practiced without these specific details.
For the purposes of the present specification, the term “listing” or “item” may refer to any description, identifier, representation or information pertaining to a listing, service, offering or request that is stored within a network-based commerce system. As such, a listing may be an auction or fixed-price offering (e.g., products such as goods and/or services), an advertisement, or a request for a listing or service. The term “listing recommendation” may include an instance of a listing being presented by a network-based commerce system. The term “popular search term” may include any criteria, textual, numeric, visual, audible or otherwise, frequently submitted by users searching a network-based commerce system. For the purposes of this specification, the word “term” is synonymous with the word “phrase” and is also intended to include a plurality of words. Thus, “term” or “phrase” can be used to refer to any entry (or entries) a user enters into a search field when requesting a search of the network-based commerce system. The term “recommendation query” may include a query that is run to produce one or more listing recommendations. The term “term-category pair” (or phrase-category pair) may refer to a popular search term or phrase associated with a particular category. In one embodiment, the term-category pair is used to generate a recommendation query. The term “popularity threshold” may include a minimum rank that a popular search term must hold in a category to be considered sufficiently popular to be used in a recommendation query. The term “relative popularity boundary” may include a measurement of the limit for a popular search term from a particular starting point through a category structure. The term “show me more” link may include any link placed next to a listing recommendation in the network-based commerce system. In one embodiment, activating the link will execute a database query in real time using a recommended popular search term to locate all current listings associated with the popular search term. Thus, the “show me more” link may provide additional listing recommendations to a specific user.
Transaction Facility
The network-based commerce system 10, includes one or more of a number of types of front-end servers that each includes at least one Dynamic Link Library (DLL) to provide selected functionality. The system 10 includes page servers 12 that deliver web pages (e.g., mark-up language documents), picture servers 14 that dynamically deliver images to be displayed within Web pages, listing servers 16 that facilitate category-based browsing of listings, search servers 18 that handle search requests to the system 10 and facilitate keyword-based browsing of listings, and ISAPI servers 20 that provide an intelligent interface to a back-end of the system 10. The system 10 also includes e-mail servers 22 that provide, inter alia, automated e-mail communications to users of the network-based commerce system 10. In one embodiment, one or more administrative application functions 24 facilitate monitoring, maintaining, and managing the system 10. One or more API servers 26 may provide a set of API functions for querying and writing to the network-based commerce system 10. APIs may be called through the HTTP transport protocol. In one embodiment, information is sent and received using a standard XML data format. Applications utilized to interact (e.g., upload transaction listings, review transaction listings, manage transaction listings, etc.) with the network-based commerce system 10 may be designed to use the APIs. Such applications may be in an HTML form or be a CGI program written in C++, Perl, Pascal, or any other programming language. Exemplary APIs are more fully described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/999,618, herein incorporated by reference.
The page servers 12, API servers 26, picture servers 14, ISAPI servers 20, search servers 18, e-mail servers 22 and a database engine server 28 may individually, or in combination, act as a communication engine to facilitate communications between, for example, a client machine 30 and the network-based commerce system 10. In addition, the page servers 12, API servers 26, picture servers 14, ISAPI servers 20, search servers 18, e-mail servers 22 and database engine server 28 may individually, or in combination, act as a transaction engine to facilitate transactions between, for example, the client machine 30 and the network-based commerce system 10. Furthermore, the page servers 12, API servers 26, picture servers 14, ISAPI servers 20, search servers 18, e-mail servers 22 and database engine server 28 may individually, or in combination, act as a display engine to facilitate the display of listings on, for example, the client machine 30.
The back-end servers may include the database engine server 28, a search index server 32 and a credit card database server 34, each of which maintains and facilitates access to a respective database.
In one embodiment, the network-based commerce system 10 is accessed by a client program, such as for example a browser 36 (e.g., the Internet Explorer distributed by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash.) that executes on the client machine 30 and accesses the network-based commerce system 10 via a network such as, for example, the Internet 38. Other examples of networks that a client may utilize to access the network-based commerce system 10 include a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a wireless network (e.g., a cellular network), the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) network, or the like. The client program that executes on the client machine 30 may also communicate with the network-based commerce system 10 via the API servers 26.
Database Structure
The database 40 may, in one embodiment, be implemented as a relational database, and includes a number of tables having entries, or records, that are linked by indices and keys. In an alternative embodiment, the database 40 may be implemented as collection of objects in an object-oriented database.
The database 40 (see
The database 40 also includes one or more divisions in the form of categories provided in category tables 50. Each record within the category table 50 may describe a respective category. In one embodiment, listings provided by the system 10 are arranged in the categories. These categories may be navigable by a user of the network-based commerce system 10 to locate listings in specific categories. Thus, categories provide a mechanism to locate listings that may be browsed. In addition or instead, an alphanumeric search mechanism may be provided by the search servers 20 to allow a user to search for specific listings using search terms or phrases. In one embodiment, the category table 50 describes multiple, hierarchical category data structures, and includes multiple category records, each of which describes the context of a particular category within the multiple hierarchical category structures. For example, the category table 50 may describe a number of real, or actual, categories to which listing records, within the listings tables 44, may be linked.
The database 40 also includes one or more attributes tables 52. Each record within the attributes table 52 describes a respective attribute associated with a listing. In one embodiment, the attributes table 52 describes multiple, hierarchical attribute data structures, and includes multiple attribute records, each of which describes the context of a particular attribute within the multiple hierarchical attribute structures. For example, the attributes table 52 may describe a number of real, or actual, attributes to which listing records, within the listings tables 44, may be linked. Also, the attributes table 52 may describe a number of real, or actual, attributes to which categories, within the category table 50, may be linked.
The database 40 may also include a note table 54 populated with note records that may be linked to one or more listing records within the listings tables 44 and/or to one or more user records within the user table 42. Each note record within the note table 54 may include, inter alia, a comment, description, history or other information pertaining to a listing being offered via the network-based commerce system 10, to a user of the network-based commerce system 10. The database 40 may also include a targeted site table 56 populated with targeted site records that may be linked to one or more listing records within the listings tables 44 and/or to one or more user records within the user table 42.
A number of other exemplary tables may also be linked to the user table 42, namely a user past aliases table 58, a feedback table 60, a feedback details table 62, a bids table 64, an accounts table 66, and an account balances table 68. In one embodiment, the database 40 also includes a batch table 70, a batch listings table 72, and a listings wait table 74.
In one embodiment, the system 10 generates listing recommendations to a user of the system 10. The listing recommendations may be based on past user interaction of the particular user with the system 10, and popular search terms used in the network-based commerce system 10 (or any other systems associated with the network-based commerce system 10).
Referring in particular to
Referring to
The above exemplary operations are described in more detail with reference to
As shown at block 106, the method 100 also identifies popular search terms (terms frequently used by users) associated with each corresponding category (or sub-category). This operation may produce one or more popular search terms or phrases that are indirectly derived from listings the user has previously interacted with.
As multiple popular search terms may be associated with each category, the method 100 at block 108 ranks the popular search terms based on the title for each selected listing, as will be described in more detail below.
Once the popular search terms have been ranked (see block 108) and the category and title for each listing have been identified (see block 104), the method 100 compares the item title to popular search terms also found in the title (see block 110). Thereafter, the method 100 may identify all popular search terms also found in the title (see block 111). At this point in the method 100, a term-category pair may thus be provided for each category (which was derived from the listings that the user previously interacted with).
At block 112, the method may choose the highest ranked term-category pair based on overall popularity of the search term. Thereafter, a popularity threshold (e.g., the highest category level) for each term-category pair is determined (see block 114). A recommendation query is constructed at block 116 based on recommendation criteria. The recommendation query is then saved at block 118 for communication to a production facility.
In summary, the method 100 may be used to construct a recommendation query (e.g., a search string) that when run, for example against the database 40, may locate listings based on previous unique user interaction with the system 10 as well as popular search terms used by other users at large. It will be appreciated that the functionality described in the various blocks 102 to 118 need not be performed as separate operations and the functionality in some of the blocks may be combined into a single operation.
The method 100 for generating recommendation queries may be run periodically. In order to take into account recent changes in the user's bidding (and/or purchasing) behaviour it may be advantageous to run the recommendation queries as frequently as possible.
Referring in particular to
At block 122, a first category associated with the network-based commerce system 10 is selected. As mentioned above, this category may be a category corresponding to listings previously bid on by the user (see blocks 102 and 104 of
At block 134, a decision is made as to whether or not all popular search terms associated with the selected (first) category have been retrieved. If not, then at block 136, the next (second) popular search term associated with the selected (first) category is retrieved. The method 120 then returns to block 126 and executes the functionality described above until all popular search terms associated with the selected (first) category have been retrieved and considered. Accordingly, as shown at decision block 134, when all the popular search terms associated with the selected (first) category have been retrieved, the method 120 proceeds to decision block 138 to perform the abovementioned functionality on the next selected (second) category. If all categories have not yet been considered, the method 120 proceeds to block 140 where the next category associated with the user interaction is selected and the selected (first) popular search term is retrieved from the popular search term table 130 (see block 142). The method 120 then proceeds to block 126 to execute the functionality described above on the selected (second) category. As shown at block 138, the above functionality is carried out until all categories derived from the user interaction have been considered, whereupon the method 120 terminates.
Referring in particular to
As shown at block 152, a user may be selected to receive a recommendation query that, when run, generates listing recommendations tailored to the specific user. However, it is to be appreciated that any one or more users of the network-based commerce system may receive listing recommendations. According, as shown at decision block 154, an enquiry is made whether or not a user has opted out of receiving listing recommendations and, if so, the method 150 then terminates at block 156. However, if the user has opted in, the method 150 proceeds to decision block 158 to determine if any activity (e.g., interaction with listings of the network-based commerce system 10) related to the user has taken place since the method 150 was previously executed for the user. If no activity (e.g., purchasing of listings, bidding on listings, viewing of listings, etc.) has occurred since the user's recommendation queries were previously updated, then the method 150 terminates at block 156.
Thus, in one embodiment, recommendation queries may be recalculated for each user when necessary (e.g., the user is active bidder/purchaser). For example, if the process of generating new recommendation queries fails, or cannot be completed for some reason, the queries previously generated may become stale or inappropriate. However, even if stale, recommendation queries may continue to be used to generate recommended listings when run against current listings. Thus, even though the recommendation query itself is stale, when the current listings (to which new listings may be constantly added and terminated listings may be removed) are searched using the stale recommendation query, different recommended listings may be provided to the user. Thus, it is important to note that although the recommendation query or queries may not have been updated, they may still be run as often as the network-based commerce system 10 determines necessary. Each time the queries are run, new results may be yielded. Such new results reflect the unpredictability of inventory supply and demand in the network-based commerce system 10. In one embodiment, a subsequent attempt to generate a recommendation query for a user, where a previous attempt has failed, should take the time period considered in the pervious attempt into account. For example, assuming the process checks whether a user has placed a new bid in the last 24 hours. If the recommendation process fails, then the next time the recommendation process is run, it should check for bids within the last 48 hours.
Returning to block 158, if user activity during a selected time window has taken place, then at block 160 the method 150 may then generate listing recommendations unique to the user. In one embodiment, the method 100 (see
In one embodiment, where listings are arranged in hierarchical structure having parent and child categories, unique listings (e.g., listings during a predetermined period, e.g., 30 days) that the user has interacted with are retrieved from a Bid Listing and Parent Category table 162 (see block 102 in
Further, for each of the identified unique listings, a primary parent level category (e.g., a highest level category in the hierarchical category structure) may be identified (see also block 104 in
In one embodiment, popular search terms are ranked (see block 108 in
In one embodiment, all unique listings up to a predetermined number (e.g., 20) that the user has interacted with in the predetermined or selected time period (e.g., 30 days) may be chosen. In one embodiment, the following two types of listings are be ignored when generating recommendation queries:
Listings listed in banned categories based on a user's site of registration; and
Listings listed for mature audiences.
In one embodiment, there may be multiple country sites (e.g., US., U.K., DE, etc.) associated with the network-based commerce system 10. For purposes of generating recommendation queries, listings to be recommended may be chosen from any of the country sites associated with the network-based commerce system 10. Accordingly, in one embodiment, no listing is ignored because it was listed on a different country site than that which the user is registered on. Of course, in an alternative embodiment the user may specify that listings only be recommended from a selected site or sites.
Popular search terms that have been ranked may be stored in a Ranked Matching Term table 166 (see
As mentioned above, a list of the highest ranked popular search terms in the parent level category may be used to generate listing recommendations. In one embodiment, a configurable value may determine a “popularity threshold”. This value may be a lowest rank within a given category that a popular search term must have to be considered “popular enough” for the purposes of creating recommendation queries in the network-based commerce system 10. For example, there may be 40 terms or phrases that are considered in a category, but the popularity threshold may be set to 25 so that only the top 25 search terms within that category are used. The popular search terms may be retrieved from a Popular Search Term table 130 (see
As mentioned above (see block 110 in
The term-category pairs are relevant in the categories associated with a listing that the user was bidding on;
The term-category pairs match actual titles of listings the user has bid on; and/or
The term-category pairs represent the unique and/or interesting qualities of those listings.
In order to avoid duplication, at block 184, duplicates of any of the term-category pairs are removed (e.g., the record may be deleted). For example, a user may have bid on two Norelco razors, each generating a term-category pair for “Norelco” in “Electric Shavers.” This duplication may then be removed at block 184.
Once any duplicates have been removed, at block 186 each term-category pair is ranked based on the overall popularity of the relevant search term across the entire network-based commerce system 10 (and any associated sites which may be included). The most popular search term may then be given a rank of 1, the next most popular may be given a rank of 2, and so on until all popular search terms have been ranked. Thereafter, at block 188, a configurable value relative to the maximum number of recommendation queries per user is determined. The configurable value may be used to determine the cut-off point or popularity threshold of the popular search terms or term-category pairs. In one embodiment, if the user has fewer term-category pairs than the maximum number of recommendation queries allowed per user, then all of the term-category pairs in the Popular Search Term table 130 may be used.
At block 190, the highest ranked term-category pairs up to the maximum number of recommendation queries per user are selected. Thereafter, at block 192, the term-category pairs selected at block 190, and each of their respective rankings, are stored in the Ranked Matching Term table 166. Each of the term-category pairs stored in the Ranked Matching Term table 166 may then be used to produce a recommendation query as described herein.
Reference numeral 200 (see
Referring in particular to
Returning to method 200 (see
In order to determine the relative upper popularity boundary 212, at block 216 the first term-category pair associated with a specific user is selected from the Ranked Matching Term table 166 (see
Thus, according to method 200, if the term-category pair meets the popularity threshold in the current category, the next highest node in the category node tree is selected. The process of sequentially moving up the category tree (see block 230) continues until the term-category pair no longer meets the popularity threshold or a root level node has been reached. As described above, when the root level node (e.g., the node 232) is reached or the term-category pair does not meet the popularity threshold in the next node up the node tree 202, then the current node is stored as the relative upper popularity boundary to the Recommendation Query table 168.
Referring in particular to
At block 252, a first term-category pair and its associated relative popularity boundaries (e.g., relative upper popularity boundary 212 and relative lower popularity boundary 210) are retrieved. The upper popularity boundary 212 may be retrieved from the Recommendation Query table 168, and the lower popularity boundary 210 may be provided by the Item_Bid_On_Parent_Category field of the Ranked Matching Term table 166. Thus, in certain embodiments, the relative lower popularity boundary 210 may be derived from a listing that the user previously interacted with.
Thereafter, at block 254 all listings between the relative lower popularity boundary 210 and relative upper popularity boundary 212 of the retrieved term-category pair are searched to locate listings identified by the term-category pair (in other words a popular search term that has been identified and processed by the method 100).
At decision block 254, a determination is made as to whether a match is found and, thus, if any listings (items) have been found in the universe of possible recommendations 214 (see
Returning to block 254, if a match is found, and thus a listing identified by the term-category pair has been located, then a filter process is performed to filter out or reject selected listings. For example, at decision block 262, listings for mature audiences are filtered out or rejected, at decision block 264 banned listings are rejected, at block 266 listings which would not be located using the term-category pair are rejected, at decision block 268 listings with a listing time close to ending (or already ended) may be rejected, at decision block 270 listings with more time remaining than a minimum time left are rejected, and at decision block 272 listings not available to a user of a site the user is registered in may be rejected. For example, rules of the network-based commerce system 10 my restrict user access to certain listings and/or sites. It is however, to be appreciated that the aforementioned filter criteria may be supplemented, reduced, changed in various different embodiments. In one embodiment, the minimum time left for listing recommendations is a configurable value. Thus recommendations may not be made for listings that have so little time remaining that the buyer cannot be expected to make a decision to interact (e.g., bid, purchase, make inquiries, etc.) with the listing before it ends.
The listings located using the term-category pair are ranked at block 274 and thereafter stored in the Recommendation table 170 (see
Each listing is the recommendation table (see
In certain embodiments, it may be desirable to generate recommended listings that are not the same (or substantially similar) to listings the user has already been interacting with (e.g., bid or bidding on, viewed, purchased, etc.). Accordingly, in one embodiment, recommendation queries may produce results outside the category (or categories) associated with the listings that the user has interacted with.
For example, a user may have purchased a listing for a CD from a “Rock” category wherein a matching popular search term for that listing is “Melissa Etheridge.” Listing recommendations corresponding to or matching “Melissa Etheridge” may however be drawn from multiple categories. For example, in generating recommended listings, listings from the “Rock” category could be excluded, or all CDs could be excluded and something else entirely could be presented to the user. In the current example, using “Melissa Etheridge”, since Melissa Etheridge CDs may also be commonly found in Country CDs, the entire CD category may be ignored. Ignoring the entire CD category may be accomplished by recognizing that “Melissa Etheridge” is still relatively popular even in the entire category of CDs. However, outside the CD category, the term “Melissa Etheridge” may no longer ranked as high in popularity. Therefore, the relative lower popularity boundary of “Melissa Etheridge” may be defined as the CD category. Thus, in this example, all listings falling within the CD category may be excluded in the recommendation query.
As mentioned above, each recommendation query may produce multiple recommended listings.
The graphic user interface 292 may be populated from the recommendation table 290. In particular, the recommendation table 290 includes three columns for each of the recommendation queries. Accordingly, column 394 stores five recommended listings 310 to 318 associated with the first recommendation query, column 306 stores five recommended listings 320 to 328 associated with the second recommendation query, and column 308 stores five recommended listings 330 to 338 associated with the third recommendation query. The recommended listings in the columns 304 to 308 are generated by searching all current listings using search strings 340 to 344 associated with the first, second and third recommendation queries, respectively.
Rows 346 to 354 are populated by sequentially selecting items or listings from the columns 304 to 308 and their associated recommendation query data. The graphic user interface 292 may then be populated from the rows 346 to 354.
The number of recommendation queries and/or recommended listings may differ from one embodiment to the next. Each recommendation query may thus produce a finite number of recommendations, equal to the number of listing recommendations to be displayed to a user. While the recommendation query may not always reflect the most recent activity of the user, in one embodiment the network-based commerce system 10 is configured so that the actual listings returned from the recommendation query are up to date (e.g., correct price, listing's time remaining).
In certain embodiments, the graphic user interface 292 is only displayed to a user of the network-based commerce system that has opted to receive recommended listings. In one embodiment, the network-based commerce system 10 only provides recommended listings to the user when there has been sufficient past interaction by the user, with the network-based commerce system 10, to support the generation of recommendations.
In certain circumstances, the network-based commerce system 10 may not generate the listings recommendation table 290 for a particular user. For example, a user might not have a listing recommendation table 290 if:
The user has explicitly opted out;
The user has opted in but there are no saved recommendation queries currently for the particular user; and
The user has opted in and there are recommendation queries for the particular user, but those queries return zero results.
As mentioned above, the exemplary graphic user interface 292 only shows a limited number of recommended listings generated by each recommendation query. In order to provide the user with more recommendation queries, the user interface 292 includes a “show me more” links 356 associated with the recommended listings provided in rows 294 to 302 (see
The computer system 400 includes a processor 402, a main memory 404 and a static memory 406, which communicate with each other via a bus 408. The computer system 400 may further include a video display unit 410 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system 400 also includes an alphanumeric input device 412 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 414 (e.g., a mouse), a disk drive unit 416, a signal generation device 418 (e.g., a speaker) and a network interface device 420 to interface the computer system to a network 422.
The disk drive unit 416 includes a machine-readable medium 424 on which is stored a set of instructions or software 426 embodying any one, or all, of the methodologies described herein. The software 426 is also shown to reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 404 and/or within the processor 402. The software 426 may further be transmitted or received via the network interface device 420. For the purposes of this specification, the term “machine-readable medium” shall be taken to include any medium which is capable of storing or encoding a sequence of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one of the methodologies of the present invention. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly be taken to included, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, optical and magnetic disks, and carrier wave signals. Further, while the software is shown in
Thus, a method and system to recommend listings of a network-based commerce system 10 have been described. Although the invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/689,970, filed Oct. 20, 2003 U.S. Pat. No. 7,831,476, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/420,199, filed Oct. 21, 2002, all of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3757037 | Bialek | Sep 1973 | A |
4992940 | Dworkin | Feb 1991 | A |
4996642 | Hey | Feb 1991 | A |
5310997 | Roach et al. | May 1994 | A |
5583763 | Atcheson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5749081 | Whiteis | May 1998 | A |
5790426 | Robinson | Aug 1998 | A |
5790790 | Smith et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5825881 | Colvin, Sr. | Oct 1998 | A |
5842199 | Miller et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845265 | Woolston | Dec 1998 | A |
5897622 | Blinn et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6016475 | Miller et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6041311 | Chislenko et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047264 | Fisher et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6049777 | Sheena et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055513 | Katz et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061448 | Smith et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6085176 | Woolston | Jul 2000 | A |
6085229 | Newman et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092049 | Chislenko et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101484 | Halbert et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6101486 | Roberts et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108493 | Miller et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119101 | Peckover | Sep 2000 | A |
6119137 | Smith et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6169986 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6178408 | Copple et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192407 | Smith et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195657 | Rucker et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6202051 | Woolston | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6243691 | Fisher et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246997 | Cybul et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266649 | Linden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6308168 | Dovich et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6313745 | Suzuki | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317722 | Jacobi et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321221 | Bieganski | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6334127 | Bieganski et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6356879 | Aggarwal et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6360216 | Hennessey et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370513 | Kolawa et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6412012 | Bieganski et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415270 | Rackson et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421675 | Ryan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430558 | Delano | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466918 | Spiegel et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6484149 | Jammes et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487539 | Aggarwal et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490577 | Anwar | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6499029 | Kurapati et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6587838 | Esposito et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6615247 | Murphy | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6636836 | Pyo | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6671681 | Emens et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6701309 | Beeferman et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6704727 | Kravets | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6732088 | Glance | May 2004 | B1 |
6772150 | Whitman et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782370 | Stack | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785671 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801909 | Delgado et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6813775 | Finseth et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6853982 | Smith et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6859807 | Knight et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6865546 | Song | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6963850 | Bezos et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7016863 | Kamakura et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7092936 | Alonso et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7225182 | Paine et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7330826 | Porat et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7831476 | Foster et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8051040 | Johnson et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8200687 | Gupta | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8275673 | Poon | Sep 2012 | B1 |
20010021914 | Jacobi et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010021921 | Kan et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010034662 | Morris | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010037255 | Tambay | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010037259 | Sharma et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010044758 | Talib et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010054021 | Kawakura et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010056395 | Khan | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020010625 | Smith et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020013734 | Bueno | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016786 | Pitkow et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020019763 | Linden et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020022994 | Miller et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020026386 | Walden | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020052873 | Delgado et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020055890 | Foley | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059116 | Bulatovic et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062258 | Bailey et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062268 | Sato et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065760 | Wiesehuegel et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065802 | Uchiyama | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065877 | Kowtko et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020082901 | Dunning et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099629 | Sato et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103692 | Rosenberg et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020103789 | Turnbull et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107853 | Hofmann et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138331 | Hosea et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143660 | Himmel et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147628 | Specter et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147724 | Fries et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156686 | Kraft et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161664 | Shaya et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020174428 | Agnihotri et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184116 | Tam et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198882 | Linden et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009411 | Ram et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028427 | Dutta et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037041 | Hertz | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037050 | Monteverde | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030050863 | Radwin | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051240 | Schaffer et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055831 | Ryan et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061122 | Berkowitz et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069740 | Zeidman | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084450 | Thurston et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093331 | Childs et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093793 | Gutta | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105682 | Dicker et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110056 | Berghofer et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030130994 | Singh et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131070 | Stroebel et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145326 | Gutta et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030182196 | Huang | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182249 | Buczak | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030208399 | Basak et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217332 | Smith et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229537 | Dunning et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233655 | Gutta et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040034652 | Hofmann et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039657 | Behrens et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040078214 | Speiser et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078297 | Veres et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040103092 | Tuzhilin et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040128321 | Hamer | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143450 | Vidali | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143584 | Chun et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153463 | Sasai et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040193612 | Chang | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205558 | Holloway et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230499 | Stack | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236736 | Whitman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040260621 | Foster et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267613 | Chan et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050028207 | Finseth et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038717 | McQueen et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038733 | Foster et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055713 | Lee et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076003 | DuBose et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091209 | Frank et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050102259 | Kapur | May 2005 | A1 |
20050102282 | Linden | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125240 | Speiser et al. | Jun 2005 | A9 |
20050125392 | Curtis et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144086 | Speiser et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050198068 | Mukherjee et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050234881 | Burago et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234972 | Zeng et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050283488 | Colossi et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060026113 | Omoigui | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060053096 | Subramanian et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060080292 | Alanzi | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085391 | Turski et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106769 | Gibbs | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129533 | Purvis | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060161520 | Brewer et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167857 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195442 | Cone et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206475 | Naam et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060212447 | Davis et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224554 | Bailey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060224587 | Zamir et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230005 | Bailey et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230040 | Curtis et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248078 | Gross et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253458 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271524 | Tanne et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060288000 | Gupta | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070118802 | Gerace et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070288433 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080077574 | Gross | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080147661 | Carden | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080306938 | Johnson et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20100017398 | Gupta et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100250341 | Hauser | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100325011 | Foster et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20120016893 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120239679 | Gupta | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120296764 | Poon et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2010202828 | Feb 2012 | AU |
0957437 | Nov 1999 | EP |
2005032193 | Sep 1996 | JP |
09244945 | Sep 1997 | JP |
11250086 | Sep 1999 | JP |
2002092032 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002123544 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002215659 | Aug 2002 | JP |
2004502213 | Jan 2004 | JP |
2005063277 | Mar 2005 | JP |
WO-0017792 | Mar 2000 | WO |
WO-0017793 | Mar 2000 | WO |
WO-0045319 | Aug 2000 | WO |
WO-0116848 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO-0129726 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO-0131537 | May 2001 | WO |
WO-0131537 | May 2001 | WO |
WO-0133401 | May 2001 | WO |
WO-0219203 | Mar 2002 | WO |
WO-0229695 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO-0237926 | May 2002 | WO |
WO-2004114155 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO-2005003898 | Jan 2005 | WO |
WO-2005003898 | Jan 2005 | WO |
WO-2007001980 | Jan 2007 | WO |
WO-2007001980 | Jan 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Hirooka, Yasuo, et al.; “Extending Content-Based Recommendation by Order-Matching and Cross-Matching Methods,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 1875, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies, (Sep. 2000), 177-190. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Appeal Decision mailed Aug. 24, 2011, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Appeal Brief Filed Oct. 24, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Advisory Action mailed Sep. 26, 2011, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Advisory Action mailed Nov. 9, 2011, 4 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief mailed Nov. 14, 2011, 2 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Oct. 4, 2011, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/247,798, Preliminary Amendment Filed Oct. 4, 2011, 3 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2010202828, Response filed Sep. 28, 2011 to Office Action mailed Apr. 20, 2011, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Decision on Appeal Brief mailed Sep. 3, 2010, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Advisory Action mailed Sep. 28, 2010, Advisory Action, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Sep. 7, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 8, 2010, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 1, 2010, 43 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 06773535.7, Extended European Search Report mailed Sep. 24, 2010, 9 Pgs. |
Linden, G, et al., “Amazon.com recommendations item-to-item collaborative filtering”, IEEE Internet Computing vol. 7, No. 1, DOI : 10.1109/MIC 2003; XP011095524, (Jan. 1, 2003), 76-80. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/200,908, Advisory Action mailed Aug. 27, 2004, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/200,908, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 26, 2004, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/200,908, Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 8, 2003, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/200,908, Response filed Jan. 8, 2004 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 8, 2003, 20 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/200,908, Response filed Jun. 24, 2004 to Final Office Action mailed Feb. 26, 2004, 21 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Appeal Brief filed Sep. 19, 2007, 25 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Final Office Action mailed Jun. 25, 2007, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 1, 2005, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2006, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2005, 19 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 19, 2006, 16 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 13, 2006, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Reply Brief filed Jan. 17, 2008, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed Mar. 9, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2006, 15 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed Mar. 13, 2007 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 13, 2006, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed May 6, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2005, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed Sep. 18, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 19, 2006, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed Nov. 14, 2005 to Final Office Action mailed Aug. 1, 2005, 15 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 3, 2006, 2 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Advisory Action mailed Oct. 7, 2009, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Appeal Brief filed Jan. 22, 2010, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Appeal Brief filed Jun. 25, 2007, 15 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Appeal Brief filed Dec. 4, 2009, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Appeal Brief mailed Oct. 18, 2006, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 18, 2006, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 15, 2009, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 16, 2005, 17 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Jul. 18, 2006, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Jan. 30, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 16, 2005, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Jun. 19, 2006 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 18, 2006, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Jul. 21, 2005 to Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 21, 2005, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Sep. 15, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 15, 2009, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Restriction Requirement mailed Jun. 21, 2005, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970 Supplemental Notice of Allowability Mailed Jul. 26, 2010, 6. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Appeal Brief filed Jun. 28, 2007, 26 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 2, 2007, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 25, 2007, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 13, 2006, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 20, 2010, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 29, 2010, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Reply Brief filed Dec. 3, 2007, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/689,970, Response filed Oct. 13, 2006 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 13, 2006, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806 Final Office Action mailed Jul. 8, 2010, 9. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Advisory Action mailed Mar. 11, 2009, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 18, 2008, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 11, 2009, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 12, 2008, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Preliminary Amendment filed May 4, 2005, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Feb. 17, 2009 to Dec. 18, 2008, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Mar. 19, 2008 to Restriction Requirement mailed Feb. 19, 2008, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Apr. 8, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2010, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Sep. 11, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 11, 2009, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Response filed Sep. 12, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 12, 2008, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Restriction Requirement mailed Feb. 19, 2008, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Advisory Action mailed Feb. 9, 2010, 4 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 7, 2008, 34 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Final Office Action mailed Nov. 17, 2009, 33 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2009, 33 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Non-Final Office Action mailed May 3, 2010, 37 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jan. 7, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Oct. 7, 2008, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jan. 18, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Nov. 17, 2009, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jun. 11, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 11, 2008, 17 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jul. 17, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2009, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/869,290, Response filed Apr. 26, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 24, 2009, 17 pgs. |
Australia Application No. 2006262446 , Examiner Report mailed on Mar. 20, 2009, 3 pgs. |
Australian Application No. 2006262446, Examiner Report Mailed Jan. 15, 2010, 2 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US03/33294, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed Jan. 30, 2006, 4 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US03/33294, International Search Report mailed Jun. 14, 2005, 8 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US03/33294, Written Opinion mailed Sep. 28, 2005, 4 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US2006/023807, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed Jan. 10, 2008, 5 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US2006/023807, International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Feb. 28, 2007, 9 pgs. |
Andale Gallery, “Andale”, www.andale.com/corp/products/gallery.jsp,(Printed May 21, 2002). |
Ardissono, Liliana , et al., “Tailoring the Interaction With Users in Electronic Shops”, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on User Modeling, Banff, Canada, (1999),35-44. |
Balabanovic, Marko , “An Adaptive Web Page Recommendation Service”, Stanford University Digital Libraries Project Working Paper, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents,(1999),378-385. |
Breese, John S., et al., “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering”, Technical Report MSR-TR-98-12—Microsoft Research, (May 1998—Revised Oct. 1998),1-21. |
Burke, Robin , “The Wasabi Personal Shopper: a case-based recommender system”, Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eleventh Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, (1999),844-849. |
Changchien, S , “Mining association rules procedure to support online recommendation by customers and product fragmentation”, Expert Systems with Application, 20(4), (May 2001),325-335. |
Cheung, N. , “Buy this! [e-commerce recommendation software]”, Information Age, (Feb. 2001),33-4. |
Cheung, W. , “Mining customer preference ratings for product recommendation using the support vector machine and the latent class model”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data Mining Methods and Databases for Engineering, Finance and Other Fields, Cambridge, UK, (Jul. 2000),601-10. |
Chien, Yi-Ying , “A personalized Internet shopping agent”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications. PDPTA'2000, pt. 4, (2000),1849-55. |
Chun, In-Gook , et al., “The implementation of knowledge-based recommender system for electronic commerce using Java expert system library”, International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, 2001. Proceedings. ISIE 2001, vol. 3, (Jun. 12-16, 2001),1766-1770. |
Claypool, Mark , et al., “Inferring User Interest”, Computer Science Technical Report Series, (Aug. 31, 2001),1-17. |
Cotlier, Moira , “The Electronic Catalog: Upselling Online Can Raise Top Line”, Catalog Age, 18(7), (Jun. 1, 2001),93. |
Demiriz, Ayhan , “Enhancing Product Recommender Systems on Sparse Binary Data”, E-Buisiness Department, Verizon Inc., (2002),1-17. |
Ebizautos, “eBay Motors Auction Management System for Auto & Motorcycle Dealers”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ebizautos.com/>,(Copyright 2001-2005),Web Page. |
Flynn, B. , “Next Hot Web Play? Precision Targeting”, Brandweek, 42(i8), Proquest #68864267.,(Feb. 19, 2001),21(3pgs). |
Greco, Carl , “What you should know before joining an Internet Mall”, Direct Marketing, 61(10), (Feb. 1999),42-3. |
Harvey, L , ““On Birthdays” mortgages, ice cream sundaes, and term life. How personalization and cross selling tools provide cross-selling in the enterprise”, E-business Strategies & Solutions, (Jul. 1999),31-5. |
Hirooka, Yasuo , et al., “Extending Content-Based Recommendation by Order-Matching and Cross-Matching Methods”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 1875, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies, (2000),177-90. |
Hirooka, Y , et al., “Recommending books of revealed and latent interests in e-commerce”, Industrial Electronics Society, 2000. IECON 2000. 26th Annual Conference of the IEEE, vol. 3, (2000),1632-1637. |
Hong, Se J., et al., “A New Approach for Item Choice Recommendations”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery, (2001),131-140. |
Iacobucci, Dawn , “Recommendation Agents on the Internet”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(3), (2000),2-11. |
IBM, “WebSphere Commerce Professional Edition”, Features at Glance, www-3.ibm.com/software/webservers/commerce/wc—pe/morefeatures.html,(Printed May 21, 2002),1 page. |
Kumar, Ravi , “Recommendation Systems: A Probabilistic Analysis”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(1), (Aug. 2001),42-61. |
Kwak, Mira , “Collaborative filtering with automatic rating for recommendation”, IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, 2001. Proceedings. ISIE 2001, vol. 1, (Jun. 12-16, 2001),625-628. |
Kwak, Mary , “Web Sites Learn to Make Smarter Suggestions”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), (Summer 2001),17. |
Kyeonah, Yu, “Improving the performance of collaborative recommendation by using multi-level similarity computation”, Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference,, (Jul. 24-26, 2000),241-5. |
Lee, Wee S., “Collaborative Learning for Recommender Systems”, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, (2001),314-321. |
Lin, Weiyang , et al., “Efficient Adaptive-Support Association Rule Mining for Recommender Systems”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 6(1), (2001),83-105. |
Loney, Fred N., “Faceted Preference Matching in Recommender Systems”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies, (2001),295-304. |
Maes, Pattie , et al., “Agents that Buy and Sell”, Communications of the ACM, 42(3), (Mar. 1999),81-91. |
Maes, Pattie , et al., “Agents that Buy and Sell:”, Transforming Commerce as we Know it, 1998 MIT Media Laboratory. Submitted to the Communications of the ACM, Mar. 1999 Issue, (1998),12 pgs. |
McAllister, Neil , “Getting Personal”, New Architect, (Nov. 2001),1-8. |
McDonald, David W., et al., “Expertise Recommender: A Flexible Recommendation System and Architecture”, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, 10 pgs. |
Nextag, “Computer Letter, Private Profiles—NexTag—of all the auction sites on the Web, here's one an economist might like”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/about/computer/letter.html>,(Aug. 23, 1999). |
Pedersen, P. , “Behavioral Effects of Using Software Agents for Product and Merchant Brokering: An Experimental Study of Consumer Decision-Making”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(1), (Fall 2000),125-141. |
Pennock, David M., “Social Choice Theory and Recommender Ststems:”, Analysis of the Axiomatic Foundations of Collaborative Filtering, In the preceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artifical Intelligence (AAA1-2000),(2000),6 pgs. |
Pennock, David M., et al., “Social Choice Theory and Recommender Systems: Analysis of the Axiomatic Foundations of Collaborative Filtering”, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, (2000),729-734. |
Ramakrishnan, N , et al., “Privacy risks in recommender systems”, IEEE Internet Computing, 5(6), (Nov.-Dec. 2001),54-63. |
Roe, Andy , “Amazon Adds Seller Services”, Accessed through following address—http://web.archive.org/web/20000816024400/http://www.auctionwatch.com/awdaily/dailynews/august99/3-081899.html,(Aug. 18, 1999),Web Page. |
Sarwar, B. , et al., “Analysis of recommendation algorithms for e-commerce”, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on EC, (2000),158-167. |
Sarwar, Badrul , et al., “Item-based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms”, WWW10 Conference, (May 1-5, 2001),1-11. |
Schafer, J , et al., “E-commerce recommendation applications”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 5(1-2), (2001),115-153. |
Schafer, J. , et al., “E-Commerce Recommendation Applications”, GroupLens Research Project, Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, (2001),1-24. |
Schafer, J. B., et al., “Recommender Systems in E-Commerce”, Department of Science and Engineering—University of Michigan, (2001),1-9. |
Schien, Andrew I., et al., “Methods and Metrics for Cold-Start Recommendations”, Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2002), (2002),1-9. |
Schubert, Petra , “Virtual Communities of Transaction:the Role of Personalization in Electronic Commerce”, Electronic Markets Journal, 10(1), (2000),1-13. |
Seitz, Juergen , et al., “Impacts of Software Agents in E-Commerce Systems on Customer?s Loyalty and on Behavior of Potential Customers”, Chapter 13 from Strategies for eCommerce Success: by Bijan Fazlollahi, IRM Press,(2000),9 pgs. |
Towle, Brendon , et al., “Knowledge Based Recommender Systems Using Explicit User Models”, Knowledge Based Electronic Markets, (2000),74-7. |
Tran, T. , “Hybrid Recommender Systems for Electronic Commerce”, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00) Workshop on Knowledge-Based Electronic Markets, (2000),78-84. |
Websphere, “WebSphere Commerce Professional Edition—Features”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/genservers/commerce/wcpe/>,(Downloaded Apr. 21, 2005),Webpage. |
Wilder, C , et al., “E-Commerce Emerges”, Information Week, No. 584, (Jun. 17, 1996),14-15. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Examiner's Answer mailed Apr. 4, 2011, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 29, 2011, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2011, 46 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jun. 23, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2011, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/869,290, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 22, 2011, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Response filed Sep. 13, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 28, 2011, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 28, 2011, 15 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2011, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Response filed Jun. 3, 2011 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2011, 16 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2010202828, First Examiner Report mailed Apr. 20, 2011, 1 pg. |
European Application Serial No. 06773535.7, EP Search Report, 13 pgs. |
Japanese Application Serial No. 2008-517212, Office Action mailed Apr. 12, 2011, 6 pgs. |
“Query—Definition by Dictionary.com”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/query>, (Accessed 2011), 1 pg. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Examiner Interview Summary mailed May 23, 2012, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Notice of Allowance mailed May 23, 2012, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/263,224, Response filed May 3, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Aug. 16, 2006, 2 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief mailed Apr. 15, 2010, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 17, 2012, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Appeal Brief filed Dec. 7, 2010, 32 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Preliminary Amendment filed May 6, 2005, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Reply Brief filed Jun. 3, 2011, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Feb. 8, 2012, 1 pg. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Notice of Allowance Mailed Feb. 8, 2012, 19 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Notice of Allowance mailed Mar. 6, 2012, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response Filed Feb. 15, 2012 to Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 8, 2012, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Advisory Action mailed Jan. 19, 2012, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Appeal Brief filed Jan. 10, 2012, 23 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2012200347, Office Action mailed Mar. 15, 2012, 2 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2012200347, Response filed May 14, 2012 to Examiner's Report mailed Mar. 15, 2012, 9 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2012, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jan. 3, 2011 to Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 1, 2010, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/869,290, Response filed Nov. 8, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 8, 2010, 19 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2006262446, Response filed Dec. 24, 2009 to Examiner Report mailed Mar. 20, 2009, 24 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2006262446, Response filed Mar. 23, 2010 to Examiner Report mailed Jan. 15, 2010, 25 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Office Action Received Jan. 7, 2011, 17 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Office Action Received Aug. 11, 2009, 30 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No., Response filed Feb. 9, 2011 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 17, 2010, 40 pgs. |
Japanese Application Serial No. 2008-517212, Office Action Response Filed Oct. 28, 2010, 23 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Advisory Action mailed Mar. 15, 2007, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 9, 2009, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 1, 2006, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 6, 2005, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Non Final Office Action mailed May 16, 2007, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 27, 2008, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Reply Brief Filed Sep. 10, 2009 to Examiner's Answer mailed Jul. 10, 2009, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Feb. 7, 2008 to Final Office Action mailed Nov. 16, 2007, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Feb. 24, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 9, 2009, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Mar. 1, 2007 to Final Office Action mailed Dec. 1, 2006, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Apr. 9, 2009 to Advisory Action mailed Mar. 19, 2009, 21 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Jun. 9, 2005 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 6, 2005, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Aug. 15, 2007 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 16, 2007, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/769,546, Response filed Sep. 29, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 27, 2008, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Final Office Action mailed Nov. 7, 2012, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Oct. 14, 2009, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Jul. 17, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 17, 2012, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/877,806, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2010, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Advisory Action mailed Aug. 4, 2010, 4 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Final Office Action mailed Jan. 9, 2009, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Final Office Action mailed May 27, 2010, 18 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 16, 2009, 31 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 23, 2008, 16 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Non-Final Office Action mailed Nov. 27, 2009, 19 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Response filed Mar. 1, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 27, 2009, 24 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Response filed Mar. 9, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jan. 9, 2009, 28 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Response filed Jul. 16, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 16, 2009, 28 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Response filed Jul. 27, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed May 27, 2010, 26 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/944,070, Response filed Oct. 23, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 23, 2008, 22 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 11, 2008, 22 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Mar. 17, 2010 to Advisory Action mailed Feb. 9, 2010, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/323,486, Response filed Jul. 9, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 3, 2010, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Advisory Action mailed Nov. 23, 2009, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Final Office Action mailed Aug. 21, 2009, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 18, 2009, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 9, 2010, 17 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Dec. 21, 2009, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/679,973, Response filed Jun. 12, 2009 to Non Final Office Action mailed Mar. 18, 2009, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/869,290, Final Office Action mailed Jul. 8, 2010, 27 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/869,290, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 24, 2009, 29 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief mailed May 29, 2012, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/870,022, Reply Brief filed Jul. 30, 2012, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002, Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2012, 28 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/565,661, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 5, 2012, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002, Response filed Dec. 14, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2012, 10 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2012200347, Examiner's Report mailed Jul. 19, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Office Action mailed Nov. 17, 2010, with English translation, 7 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Notice of Decision to Grant mailed Nov. 30, 2012, with English translation, 5 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Office Action mailed Jun. 26, 2009, with English translation of claims, 28 pgs. |
Chinese Application Serial No. 200680022268.9, Response filed Nov. 11, 2009 to Office Action mailed Jun. 26, 2009, with English translation of claims, 29 pgs. |
“eBizAutos: It All About the Cars”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.ebizautos.com/>, (Accessed Apr. 15, 2005), 2 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 06773535.7, Office Action mailed May 13, 2011, 2 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 06773535.7, Response filed Mar. 1, 2012 to Office Action mailed May 13, 2011, 22 pgs. |
International Application Serial No. PCT/US2006/23807, Written Opinion mailed Feb. 28, 2007, 3 pgs. |
Japanese Application Serial No. 2008-517212, Office Action mailed Aug. 3, 2010, with English translation of claims, 12 pgs. |
Japanese Application Serial No. 2008-517212, Office Action Response filed Jun. 24, 2011, with English translation of claims, 25 pgs. |
Andale Gallery, “Gallery—Cross Sell More Items”, Copyright© 1999-2005 Andale Inc., [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://cms.andale.com/corp/products/gallery.jsp (also http://cms.andale.com/auction/gallery.html)> Accessed on Web Apr. 15, 2005, 5 pgs. |
Andale Gallery, “Prominently Featured on Your Listings”, Copyright© 2001 Andale, Inc., [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.andale.com/corp/tour/gal—tour4.html> Accessed on Web—Apr. 15, 2005, 1 pg. |
Ansari, A., “Internet Recommendation System”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 37(3), Proquest #57914570, (Aug. 2000), 13 pgs. |
Kanemoto, H, “Web Customer Action Analysis System”, Matsushita Technical Journal, 48(1), (Feb. 2002), 26-29. |
Karypis, George, “Evaluation of Item-Based Top-N Recommendation Algorithms”, Technical Report #00-046, http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/˜karypis/publications/Papers/PDF/itemrs.pdf, (2000), 1-13. |
Kitts, Brendan, et al., “Cross-sell: A Fast Promotion-Tunable Customer-item Recommendation Method Based on Conditionally Independent Probabilities”, Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, Boston, MA USA, (Aug. 2000), 437-446. |
Kohrs, Arnd, et al., “Using category-based collaborative filtering in the Active WebMuseum”, 2000 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2000. ICME 2000, vol. 1, (Jul. 30-Aug. 2, 2000), 351-354. |
McDonald, D W, “Expertise recommender: a flexible recommendation system and architecture”, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, (2000), 231-240. |
Ohkubo, M., et al., “Extracting Information Demand by Analyzing a WWW Search Log”, Transactions of Information Processing Society of Japan, 39(7), (Jul. 15, 1998), 2250-2258. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Advisory Action mailed Jan. 11, 2013, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Mar. 18, 2013, 2 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 20, 2013, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review mailed Feb. 1, 2013, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Dec. 27, 2012 to Final Office Action mailed Nov. 7, 2012, 16 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/247,798, Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 2, 2013, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/247,798, Response filed Jul. 2, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 2, 2013, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002 , Response filed May 13, 2013 to Final Office Action mailed Feb. 14, 2013, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002, Final Office Action mailed Feb. 14, 2013, 32 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2013, 31 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/565,661, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 4, 2013, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/565,661, Response filed Mar. 5, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 5, 2012, 13 pgs. |
Australian Application Serial No. 2012200347, Response filed Jan. 7, 2013 to Office Action mailed Jul. 19, 2012, 2 pgs. |
India Application Serial No. 9703/DELNP/2007, First Examination Report mailed Feb. 22, 2013, 4 pgs. |
Linden, G., et al., “Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering”, IEEE Internet Computing, 7(1), (Jan.-Feb. 2003), 76-80. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/247,798, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 5, 2013, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/666,681, Response filed Sep. 20, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 20, 2013, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/485,002, Response filed Sep. 10, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2013, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/565,661, Response filed Sep. 4, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 4, 2013, 10 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110055040 A1 | Mar 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60420199 | Oct 2002 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10689970 | Oct 2003 | US |
Child | 12870031 | US |