Creative people design interactive media, activities and products (“media”) that stimulate individuals and keep them engaged. Often times media are sold to consumers in highly competitive markets where the ability to stimulate engagement determines value. The creative people would like to know whether their customers are engaged in the media in order to maximize value by improving media to better stimulate individuals. If the value of the media is not maximized customers will purchase competing products which provide better stimulation. If competing products are sold, revenue will be lost as sales decline. A problem then is in providing accurate information about a response to stimulation by interactive media, activities, and products. Measuring the response requires creators of interactive media, activities and products to enter the minds of the target market.
In entering the human mind researchers in neurobiology, psychophysiology, and psychology found physiological signals emanating from the brain. Using the electroencephalogram (EEG) researchers recorded the physiological signals though electrodes attached to the head. The physiological signals had four main components below 30 hertz. Frequencies between 1-4 hertz were delta waves (δ), frequencies between 4 and 8 hertz were theta (θ) waves, frequencies between 8-13 hertz were alpha (α) brainwaves, and frequencies between 13 and 20 were beta (β) brainwaves.
Additionally, tools used to collect data from the body include the photoplethysmograph (PPG), and the electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG, German electrocardiogram). The photoplethysmograph (PPG) is an optically obtained measurement which can be used to find the cardiac cycle. A PPG uses a pulse oximeter to observe a change in oxygen omission from the skin in relation to the cardiac cycle as blood is pumped to the extremities. The cardiac cycle can then be recorded based on this change in oxygen omission. Another measure of the heart rate is the ECG. The electrocardiogram (ECG), measures heartbeats via an electrode attached to the chest. Traditionally, an ECG produced an electrocardiograph, or a picture showing the heart beat over time. Alternatively, the signal generated by the heart is recorded.
The foregoing examples of the related art and limitations related therewith are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Other limitations of the related art will be come apparent to those of skill in the art upon a reading of the specification and a study of the drawings.
The following embodiments and aspects thereof are described and illustrated in conjunction with systems, tools, and methods that are meant to be exemplary and illustrative, not limiting in scope. In various embodiments, one or more of the above described problems have been reduced or eliminated, while other embodiments are directed to other improvements.
A novel technique measures an “engagement” response of an individual to a media. The technique uses physiological signals emanating from the brain and the body to gauge the engagement response. An engagement value is an objective measure of the engagement response that quantifies an amount that a user is acting without thinking. Advantageously, the engagement response can be used to efficiently improve media while it is being created. In a non limiting example, ranking determines whether the individual finds a television show more engaging provoking than a documentary. Further, groups of individuals can have an engagement response that can be measured and aggregated to determine the overall population response to the media. This population view of the media can then be used to rank the media which is a novel use of physiological changes in response to media.
Embodiments of the inventions are illustrated in the figures. However, the embodiments and figures are illustrative rather than limiting; they provide examples of the inventions.
In the following description, several specific details are presented to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or in combination with other components, etc. In other instances, well-known implementations or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of various embodiments of the invention.
A novel system and method for measuring an “engagement” response for use in rating media uses physiological signals. An individual responds to a media while physiological sensors record this response. A processing component collects the physiological signals through the physiological sensors and substantially concurrently assigns an engagement value to the amount the individual acts without thinking. “Substantially concurrently” means that the response is at the same time or near in time to the stimulation. There may be a delay in the response. Therefore, the engagement value is calculated with the understanding that the response may be immediately following if not exactly at the same time with the stimulation.
In some embodiments, an exemplary way of calculating an engagement value is consider how much an individual is acting without thinking. Three useful signals for doing this include alpha waves and theta waves from a mind, and then a heart rate (HR). Other useful signals exist, and some of them will be discussed later on. Generally speaking, an increased heart rate is indicative of higher engagement, increased theta is indicative of higher levels of thought, thus lower engagement, and increased alpha is indicative of lower levels of thought, thus higher engagement. These exact relationships are explored in more depth in the discussion of
In the example of
In the example of
In the example of
In some embodiments, the frequencies are separated out from the signal and stored into bins. In storing the frequencies from the signal, bins hold sampled signals from the frequency domain. A DFT bin can be defined by calculating an n point DFT. Specifically, n different sample values are created X(0) through X(n−1). With i being a value 0 to n−1, X(i) is a bin holding relevant sample values. The Alpha bin can hold anything between 8-13 Hz, but not necessarily including all frequencies in that range. The Theta bin can hold anything between 4-8 Hz, but does not have to include all frequencies. Similarly, delta and beta waves can be held in delta and beta bins. Additionally, the frequency profile can be adjusted to remove noise in the signal such as white noise or pink noise.
In the example of
In some embodiments it is possible to sense engagement using only alpha, or only theta in contrast with the heart rate. Total EEG power is also useful. A single formula could be used to calculate an engagement value, wherein x/EEG represents x in contrast to total EEG power. Further, an optimized multiplier of theta could be used, such as by taking the natural log of theta and multiplying by a scale factor. In a non-limiting example theta could be optimized as: optimized theta=s˜ln(theta) where s is a scale factor and ln(x) represents a function finding the natural log of x. Theta or optimized theta could be used in conjunction therewith
In some embodiments alpha brainwaves are inversely correlated with cognitive activity. As alpha power increases there is a drop in thought; conversely as cortical processing increases, there is a drop in alpha power which is commonly referred to as alpha suppression. Using these bases, the engagement value is determined by using a formula which looks for an increasing heart rate, decreasing alpha power, and increasing theta power. An example of such a formula which is:
This formula uses a combination of the heart rate, the alpha and the theta values. Specifically, a combination of alpha and theta values is subtracted from an adjusted heart rate which as been adjusted by dividing it by 50. The adjustment and the combination of alpha and theta values are non-limiting and the formula could be re-written as necessary for a particular application. Other formulas which could be used are discussed later in regard to
In some embodiments, one or more events of a media are used to define an engagement value for the media. An event is an identifiable portion of a media. It could be the punch line of a joke, or an important scene of a movie. An event of a media is measurable and can have an engagement value associated with it. A number of events will have a number of engagement values. The media can be ranked as a whole by considering the events it contains and engagement values associated with those events.
In some embodiments the engagement value is calculated at a specific point in time. An exemplary system produces a time variant graph of the engagement of the individual based on a plurality of engagement values calculated in reference to stimulation with a media.
In some embodiments, a derivative may be calculated to determine a change in engagement indicating a response to stimulus. In a non-limiting example an event of a media engages a person causing an engagement response which is identified by a positive derivative. A positive derivative indicates an increase in engagement and a negative derivative indicates a decrease in engagement. Creators of media could use this information to create media ware more engaging, or less engaging as the creators desire.
In some embodiments, a media may be ranked based on engagement values.
In some embodiments a reference value is used to compare a user engagement response to an event with a predetermined engagement value of the event. The reference value could be anything developed for the purpose of providing a comparison value from which to determine a difference between the user's engagement value and the event. Developers of media may create their own reference values. A reference value may be an ideal value i.e. a goal desired. A reference value could be the average of a number of different user engagement values calculated solely for the purpose of developing a reference value from which to compare other individuals.
In the example of
In the example of
In some embodiments, a plurality of media is ranked according to engagement values. In the example of
In some embodiments an aggregate of a number of individual engagement values derived from physiological responses is created determining a group response to a media. The aggregation can be by an average response for the number of individuals or by a higher ordered approximation.
In some embodiments, an event is classified as a specific type of event by using a mathematical transform to compare the event with other events. Such mathematical transforms may include but are not limited to, an average, a first order derivative, a second order derivative, a polynomial approximation, a standard deviation from the mean, a standard deviation of derivatives from the mean, and profiles of the physiological responses, which can be implemented with convolution or other methods that takes into account one or more of: peaking in the middle, spiking in the beginning, being flat, etc.
In some embodiments, an integrated headset can be placed on a viewer's head for measurement of his/her physiological data while the viewer is watching an event of the media. The data can be recorded in a program on a computer that allows viewers to interact with media while wearing the headset.
In some embodiments, the integrated headset can be turned on with a push button and the viewer's physiological data is measured and recorded instantly. The data transmission can be handled wirelessly through a computer interface that the headset links to. No skin preparation or gels are needed on the viewer to obtain an accurate measurement, and the headset can be removed from the viewer easily and can be instantly used by another viewer. No degradation of the headset occurs during use and the headset can be reused thousands of times.
It will be appreciated to those skilled in the art that the preceding examples and embodiments are exemplary and not limiting to the scope of the present invention. It is intended that all permutations, enhancements, equivalents, and improvements thereto that are apparent to those skilled in the art upon a reading of the specification and a study of the drawings are included within the true spirit and scope of the present invention. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims include all such modifications, permutations, and equivalents as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/905,447, filed Mar. 8, 2007, and entitled “Method and system for measuring and ranking ‘engagement’ response to audiovisual or interactive media, products or activities using physiological signals” by Hans C. Lee, et al., which is incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4695879 | Weinblatt | Sep 1987 | A |
4755045 | Borah et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4846190 | John | Jul 1989 | A |
4931934 | Snyder | Jun 1990 | A |
4974602 | Abraham-Fuchs et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5024235 | Ayers | Jun 1991 | A |
5243517 | Schmidt et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5406957 | Tansey | Apr 1995 | A |
5447166 | Gevins | Sep 1995 | A |
5450855 | Rosenfeld | Sep 1995 | A |
5513649 | Gevins et al. | May 1996 | A |
5579774 | Miller et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5601090 | Musha | Feb 1997 | A |
5649061 | Smyth | Jul 1997 | A |
5676138 | Zawilinski | Oct 1997 | A |
5692906 | Corder | Dec 1997 | A |
5724987 | Gevins et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5740812 | Cowan | Apr 1998 | A |
5774591 | Black et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5983129 | Cowan et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983214 | Lang et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6001065 | DeVito | Dec 1999 | A |
6099319 | Zaltman et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6254536 | DeVito | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6259889 | LaDue | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6292688 | Patton | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6309342 | Blazey et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6322368 | Young et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6349231 | Musha | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6425764 | Lamson | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434419 | Gevins et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6481013 | Dinwiddie et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6585521 | Obrador | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606102 | Odom | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609024 | Ryu et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6623428 | Miller et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6626676 | Freer | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6648822 | Hamamoto et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6652283 | Van Schaack et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6656116 | Kim et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6678866 | Sugimoto et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6699188 | Wessel | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6792304 | Silberstein | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6839682 | Blume | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6978115 | Whitehurst et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7035685 | Ryu et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7050753 | Knutson | May 2006 | B2 |
7113916 | Hill | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7127283 | Kageyama | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7194186 | Strub et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
D565735 | Washbon | Apr 2008 | S |
7383728 | Noble et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7627880 | Itakura | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7689272 | Farwell | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7716697 | Morikawa et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7739140 | Vinson et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7742623 | Moon et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7751878 | Merkle et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7805009 | Everett et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7853122 | Miura et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7914468 | Shalon et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7942816 | Satoh et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
20010016874 | Ono et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010056225 | DeVito | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020107454 | Collura et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020154833 | Koch et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020182574 | Freer | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188216 | Kayyali et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030003433 | Carpenter et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030055355 | Viertio-Oja | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030063780 | Gutta et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030066071 | Gutta et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030067486 | Lee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076369 | Resner | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081834 | Philomin et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093784 | Dimitrova et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030126593 | Mault | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030153841 | Kilborn et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040013398 | Miura et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040018476 | LaDue | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040039268 | Barbour et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040072133 | Kullok et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040077934 | Massad | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088289 | Xu et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111033 | Oung et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040161730 | Urman | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040193068 | Burton et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040208496 | Pilu | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040267141 | Amano et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010087 | Banet | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010116 | Korhonen et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050043774 | Devlin et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050045189 | Jay | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050066307 | Patel et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071865 | Martins | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050096311 | Suffin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050097594 | O'Donnell et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113656 | Chance | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120372 | Itakura | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050143629 | Farwell | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165285 | Iliff | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050172311 | Hjelt et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050223237 | Barletta et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050289582 | Tavares et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010470 | Kurosaki et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060064037 | Shalon et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060094970 | Drew | May 2006 | A1 |
20060111621 | Coppi et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060143647 | Bill | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060217598 | Miyajima et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060258926 | Ali et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060265022 | John et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277102 | Agliozzo | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293608 | Rothman et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293921 | McCarthy et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070031798 | Gottfried | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070048707 | Caamano et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070053513 | Hoffberg | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070055169 | Lee et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060830 | Le et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060831 | Le et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070066914 | Le et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070116037 | Moore | May 2007 | A1 |
20070168461 | Moore | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070173733 | Le et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179396 | Le et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070184420 | Mathan et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225585 | Washbon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070235716 | Delic et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070238945 | Delic et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265507 | De Lemos | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080039737 | Breiter et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080091512 | Marci et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080144882 | Leinbach et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080159365 | Dubocanin et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080162182 | Cazares et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177197 | Lee et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080201731 | Howcroft | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080211768 | Breen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080218472 | Breen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090024049 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024447 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024448 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024449 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024475 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090025023 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030287 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030303 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030717 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030930 | Pradeep et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090036755 | Pradeep et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090036756 | Pradeep et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090062629 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090062681 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090063255 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090063256 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090082643 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083129 | Pradeep et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090105576 | Do et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090112077 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090156925 | Jin et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090214060 | Chuang et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222330 | Leinbach | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100076333 | Burton et al. | Mar 2010 | A9 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1052582 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1389012 | Feb 2004 | EP |
1607842 | Dec 2005 | EP |
05293172 | Nov 1993 | JP |
07-329657 | Dec 1995 | JP |
2002-000577 | Jan 2002 | JP |
0256500 | Feb 2002 | JP |
2002-344904 | Nov 2002 | JP |
2003-016095 | Jan 2003 | JP |
2003-111106 | Apr 2003 | JP |
2003-178078 | Jun 2003 | JP |
2003522580 | Jul 2003 | JP |
2005084770 | Mar 2005 | JP |
2006-323547 | Nov 2006 | JP |
10-2000-0072489 | Dec 2000 | KR |
10-2001-0104579 | Nov 2001 | KR |
0017824 | Mar 2000 | WO |
0197070 | Dec 2001 | WO |
2004100765 | Nov 2004 | WO |
2006005767 | Jan 2006 | WO |
2007019584 | Feb 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/015019, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/15019, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/14955, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/14955, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/16796, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/16796, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US06/31569, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US06/31569, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20714, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20714, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 7 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/17764, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/17764, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Rep;ort and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20713, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20713, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 4 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Searching Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Delcaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 13 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 14 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 9 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 7 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. |
Technology Platform: SmartShirt + Eye-Tracking Innerscope Research, Mar. 2007. |
Egner, Tobias; Emilie Strawson, and John H. Gruzelier, “EEG Signature and Phenomenology of Alpha/theta Neurofeedback Training Versus Mock Feedback.” Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. vol. 27, No. 4. Dec. 2002. |
Clarke, Adam R. et al., EEG Analysis of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Comorbid Reading Disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities , vol. 35, No. 3, (May-Jun. 2002), pp. 276-285. |
Carter, R., “Mapping the Mind” 1998 p. 182 University of California Press, Berkley. |
Harmony et al. (2004) Specific EEG frequencies signal general common cognitive processes as well as specific tasks processes in man. Int. Journal of Psychophysiology 53(3): 207-16. |
Klimesch, W., Schimke, H., Schwaiger, J. (1994) Episodic and semantic memory: an analysis in the EEG theta and alpha band. Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology. |
Mizuhara, H.,Wang LQ, Kobayashi, K., Yamaguchi, Y., (2004) A long range cortical network emerging with theta oscillation in mental task. Neuroreport 15(8): 1233-1238. |
Seldon, G (1981) “Machines that Read Minds.” Science Digest, Oct. |
Willis, M. & Hodson, V.; Discover Your Child's Learning Style: Children Learn in Unique Ways-Here's the Key to Every Child's Learning Success, Prime Publishing. Roseville, CA. |
Wise, A (1996) The High Performance Mind, Mastering Brainwaves for Insight, Healing and Creativity. G.P. Putnam's Son, New York. pp. 13-15; 20-22; 143-156. |
Wise, A (1996) The High Performance Mind, Mastering Brainwaves for Insight, Healing and Creativity. G.P. Putnam's Son, New York. pp. 156-158; 165-170; 186-187, 189-192. |
El-Bab, M. (2001) Cognitive event related potentials during a learning task. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK. |
Gevins et al. (1997) High resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to a working memory, Cereb Cortex. 7: 374-385. |
Hughes, J.R. & John, E.R. (1999) Conventional and Quantitative Electroencephalography in Psychiatry. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. vol. 11(2): 190-208. |
International Search report and Written Opinion for PCT Application PCT/US07/020714, Search report dated Apr. 8, 2008, 11 pages (2008). |
Final Decision of Rejection, English Language, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese application No. 2009-552656, on Jan. 21, 2013, 3 pages. |
Notice of Reason for Rejection, English Language, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese application No. 2009-552660, on Mar. 13, 2013, 3 pages. |
Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, filed Mar. 25, 2013, 2 pages. |
Advisory Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, filed Mar. 6, 2013, 3 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07 838 838.6-2319, on Sep. 23, 2011, 4 pages. |
W. Klimesch, “EEG alpha and theta oscillation reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis,” Brain Research Reviews 29, Elsevier Science B.V., 1999, pp. 169-195. |
Interrogative Statement, English Language, issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Japan, in connection with Japanese application No. 2009-552656, on Oct. 25, 2013, 4 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07796518.4, on Sep. 13, 2013, 7 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07838838.6, on Oct. 23, 2013, 4 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/553,515 on Jul. 17, 2013, 12 pages. |
Notification of Grant of Patent Right for Invention, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200780052869.9, on Aug. 31, 2012, 1 page. |
Notification of the Third Office Action, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200780052868.4, on Aug. 9, 2012, 7 pages. |
Notification of the Second Office Action, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200780052879.2, on May 4, 2012, 11 pages. |
Notification of the Third Office Action, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200680031159.3, on Mar. 28, 2012, 6 pages. |
Notification of the Second Office Action, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200680031159.3, on Oct. 19, 2011, 8 pages. |
Notification of the Third Office Action, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 200780052879.2, on Dec. 31, 2012, 10 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application 07 838 838.6, on Sep. 5, 2012, 5 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07796518.4, on Jul. 11, 2012, 8 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07 810 808.1, on Dec. 1, 2011, 6 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Appliation No. 06824810.3, on Nov. 22, 2011, 14 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07 852 430.3, on Mar. 6, 2012, 5 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07811241.4, on Feb. 14, 2012, 6 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07 838 838.6, on Sep. 23, 2011, 4 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 06824810.3, on Nov. 3, 2011, 13 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07796518.4, on Jul. 30, 2012, 9 pages. |
Notification of Reason(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552658, on Apr. 19, 2012, 2 pages. |
Notification of Reason(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552657, on May 2, 2012, 5 pages. |
Notification of Reason(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552656, on Mar. 30, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-529085, Nov. 29, 2011, 2 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552661, Nov. 13, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552659, Nov. 16, 2012, 4 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552660, Nov. 16, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517, on Mar. 21, 2012, 8 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517, on Sep. 1, 2011, 11 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517, on Feb. 3, 2011, 15 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517, on Jun. 23, 2010, 14 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517, on Sep. 17, 2009, 15 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, on Mar. 15, 2012, 15 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, on Oct. 9, 2012, 11 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, on Jul. 21, 2010, 14 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555, on Oct. 1, 2009, 17 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/779,814, on Feb. 13, 2012, 19 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/779,814, on Jun. 28, 2012, 18 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/779,814, on Jun. 18, 2010, 24 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/779,814, on Oct. 5, 2009, 24 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678, on Dec. 8, 2010, 9 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678, on Mar. 17, 2010, 10 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678, on Sep. 3, 2008, 12 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678, on , Jun. 9, 2009, 11 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634, on Apr. 25, 2012, 23 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634, on Sep. 1, 2011, 16 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,676, on Mar. 6, 2012, 9 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,676, on May 10, 2011, 9 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,702, on Jun. 3, 2010, 8 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,702, on May 28, 2009, 8 pages. |
Final Rejection, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/681,265, on Apr. 10, 2012, 18 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/681,265, on Jun. 21, 2011, 15 pages. |
Restriction and/or Election Requirement, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/846,068, on Feb. 21, 2012, 6 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/846,068, on Apr. 27, 2012, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/846,068, on Dec. 26, 2012, 9 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/835,714, on Jan. 22, 2013, 34 pages. |
Adamic et al., “The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog,” Proceedings WWW-2005 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, 2005, Chiba, Japan, 16 pages. |
Adar et al., “Implicit structure and the dynamics of blogspace,” Proceedings WWW-2004 Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, 2004, New York, NY, 8 pages. |
Aliod et al., “A Real World Implementation of Answer Extraction,” Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland, 6 pages. |
Bishop, Mike, “Arrow Question/Answering Systems,” Language Computer Corporation, 1999, 3 pages. |
Bizrate, archived version of www.bizrate.com, Jan. 1999, 22 pages. |
Blum, “Empirical Support for Winnow and Weighted-Majority Algorithms: Results on a Calendar Scheduling Domain,” in Machine Learning, vol. 26, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 1997, 19 pages. |
Bournellis, Cynthia, “Tracking the hits on Web Sites,” Communications International: vol. 22, Issue 9, London, Sep. 1995, 3 pages. |
Chaum et al., “A Secure and Privacy-Protecting Protocol for Transmitting Personal Information Between Organizations,” A.M. Odlyzko (Ed.): Advances in Cryptology, CRYPTO '86, LNCS 263, 1987, 51 pages. |
Chaum, David L., “Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonymns,” Communication of the ACM, vol. 24, No. 2, 1981, 5 pages. |
Cohen, William W., “Data Integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation language,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 18, No. 3, Jul. 2000, 34 pages. |
Cohn et al., “Active Learning with Statistical Models,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, AI Access Foundation and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, USA, 1996, 17 pages. |
Dagan et al., “Mistake-Driven Learning in Text Categorization,” in EMNLP '97, 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1997, 9 pages. |
Delahaye Group, “Delahaye Group to Offer Nets Bench: High Level Web-Site Qualitative Analysis and Reporting; NetBench Builds on Systems provided by I/PRO and Internet Media Services,” 1995 Business Wire, Inc., May 31, 1995, 3 pages. |
Dialogic, www.dialogic.com as archived on May 12, 2000, 34 pages. |
Dillon et al., “Marketing research in a Marketing Environment,” Times Mirror/Mosby College, USA, 1987, 5 pages. |
Ewatch, eWatch's archived web site retrieved from [URL: http://web.archive.org/web/19980522190526/wwww.ewatch.com] on Sep. 8, 2004, archived May 22, 1998, 50 pages. |
Egner et al., “EEG Signature and Phenomenology of Alpha/theta Neurofeedback Training Versus Mock Feedback,” Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, vol. 27, No. 4, Dec. 2002, 10 pages. |
Farber, Dave, “IP: eWatch and Cybersleuth,” retrieved from [URL: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200006/msg00090.html] Jun. 29, 2000, 4 pages. |
Freund et al., “Selective Sampling Using the Query by Committee Algorithm,” Machine Learning 28 Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1997, 36 pages. |
Glance et al., “Analyzing online disussion for marketing intelligence,” Proceedings WWW-2005 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, Chiba, Japan, 2005, 2 pages. |
Glance et al., “Deriving marketing intelligence from online discussion,” 11th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, IL, Aug. 21-24, 2005, 10 pages. |
Grefenstette et al., “Validating the Coverage of Lexical Resources for Affect Analysis and Automatically Classifying New Words along Semantic Axes,” Chapter X, 3, Mar. 2004, 16 pages. |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “An Intelligent System for Question Answering,” University of Southern California; Modlovan, Dan, Southern Methodist University, 1996, 5 pages. |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “Experiments with Open-Domain Textual Question Answering,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist Universtity, 2000, 7 pages. |
Harabagiu, Sanda M., “Mining Textual Answers with Knowledge-Based Indicators,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist University, 2000, 5 pages. |
Housley et al., “Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile,” Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2459, Jan. 1999, 121 pages. |
Joachims, Thorsten, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features,” in Machine Learning: ECML-98, Tenth European Conference on Machine Learning, 1998, 7 pages. |
Kahn et al., “Categorizing Web Documents using Competitive Learning: An ingrediant of a Personal Adaptive Agent,” IEEE 1997, 4 pages. |
Katz, Boris, “From Sentence Processing to Information Access on the World Wide Web,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Feb. 27, 1997, 20 pages. |
Kleppner, “Advertising Procedure,” 6th edition, 1977, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 492, 3 pages. |
Kotler, “Marketing Management,” PrenticeHall International Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997, 10 pages. |
Klimesch, “EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis,” Brain Research Reviews, vol. 29, 1999, 27 pages. |
Lenz et al., “Question answering with Textual CBR,” Department of Computer Science, Humboldt University Berlin, D-10099 Berlin, 1998, 12 pages. |
Littlestone, Nick, “Learning Quickly When Irrelevant Attributes Abound: A New Linear-threshold Algorithm,” in Machine Learning, vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1988, 34 pages. |
Marlow, “Audience, structure and authority in the weblog community,” International Communication Association Conference, MIT Media Laboratory, New Orleans, LA 2004, 9 pages. |
McCallum et al., “Text Classification by Bootstrapping with the Keywords, EM and Shrinkage,” Just Research and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, circa 1999, 7 pages. |
McLachlan et al., “The EM Algorithm and Extensions,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1997, 301 pages. |
Moldovan et al., “LASSO: A Tool for Surfing the Answer Net,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Southern Methodist University, 1999, 9 pages. |
Nakashima et al., “Information Filtering for the Newspaper,” IEEE 1997, 4 pages. |
Nanno et al., “Automatic collection and monitoring of Japanese Weblogs,” Proceedings WWW-2004 Workshop on the weblogging Ecosystem, 2004, New York, NY, 7 pages. |
Netcurrent, NetCurrent's web site, http://web.archive.org/web/20000622024845/www.netcurrents.com, retrieved on Jan. 17, 2005, archived on Jun. 22, 2000 and Sep. 18, 2000, 17 pages. |
Pang et al., “Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques,” in Proceedings of EMNLP 2002, 8 pages. |
Reguly, “Caveat Emptor Rules on the Internet,” The Globe and Mail (Canada): Report on Business Column, Apr. 10, 1999, 2 pages. |
Reinartz, “Customer Lifetime Value Analysis: An Integrated Empirical Framework for Measurement and Explanation,” dissertation: Apr. 1999, 68 pages. |
Schmidt et al., “Frontal brain electrical activity (EEG) distinguishes valence and intensity of musical emotions,” Cognition and Emotion, vol. 15 (4), Psychology Press Ltd, 2001, 14 pages. |
Sammler, “Music and emotion: Electrophysiological correlates of the processing of pleasant and unpleasant music,” Psychophysiology, vol. 44, Blackwell Publiching Inc., 2007, 12 pages. |
Soderland et al., “Customer Satisfaction and Links to Customer Profitability: An Empirical Examination of the Association Between Attitudes and Behavior,” SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, Jan. 1999, 22 pages. |
Thomas, “International Marketing,” International Textbook Company, Scranton, PA 1971, 3 pages. |
Trigaux, Robert, “Cyberwar Erupts Over Free Speech Across Florida, Nation,” Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, May 29, 2000, 4 pages. |
Tull et al., “Marketing Research Measurement and Method,” MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1984, 9 pages. |
Voorhees, Ellen M., “The TREC-8 Question Answering Track Report,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1999, 6 pages. |
Wiebe et al., “Identifying Collocations for Recognizing Opinions,” in proceedings of ACL/EACL '01 Workshop on Collocation, Toulouse, France, Apr. 9, 2001, 9 pages. |
Word of Mouth Research Case Study, “The Trans Fat Issue, Analysis of online consumer conversation to understand how the Oreo lawsuit impacted word-of-mouth on trans fats,” Aug. 16, 2004, 35 pages. |
Yang, “An Evaluation of Statistical Approaches to Text Categorization,” Information Retrieval 1 (1/2) Apr. 10, 1999, 12 pages. |
Zagat, www.zagat.com, archived on Apr. 29, 1999, 33 pages. |
Zagat, www.zagat.com, archived version of p. 34, Feb. 1999, 1 page. |
Group A: U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,517. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/553,515. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/779,814. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/845,993. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/846,068. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,676. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,702. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/681,265. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/835,714. |
Group B: U.S. Appl. No. 12/180,510. |
Group C: U.S. Appl. No. 11/430,555. |
Group D: U.S. Appl. No. 11/852,189. |
Group E: U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,737. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,748. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/252,910. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/263,331. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,751. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,752. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/263,350. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/326,016. |
Group F: U.S. Appl. No. 13/053,016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/053,043. |
Group G: U.S. Appl. No. 13/053,097. |
Group H: U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,591. |
Group I: U.S. Appl. No. 12/206,700. |
Group J: U.S. Appl. No. 11/959,399. |
European office action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European patent application No. 07 852 430.3, on Feb. 6, 2013, 5 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634, issued on Feb. 26, 2013, 24 pages. |
Notice for Reasons for Rejection, English Language, issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Japan, in connection with Japanese application No. 2009-552661, on Apr. 24, 2013, 2 pages. |
Decision of Rejection, English Language, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese application No. 2007800528791, on May 29, 2013, 11 pages. |
Decision of Rejection, Chinese Language, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese application No. 2007800528791, on May 29, 2013, 7 pages. |
Final Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634 on Jun. 20, 2013, 23 pages. |
Decision of Rejection, English Language, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese application No. 201210063607.5, on Nov. 19, 2013, 10 pages. |
Decision of Rejection, Chinese Language, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China, in connection with Chinese application No. 201210063607.5, on Nov. 19, 2013, 6 pages. |
Final Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with United States application No. 13/553,515 on Jan. 9, 2014, 13 pages. |
First Office Action and Search Report, with English Language Version, issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of the Peoples' Republic of China, in connection with Chinese Patent Application No. 201210244954.8, on Jan. 2, 2014, 25 pages. |
Non Final Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/500,678 on Mar. 18, 2014, 10 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application No. 07 838838.6 on Mar. 12, 2014, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/804,555 on Mar. 3, 2014, 7 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552660 Jan. 21, 2014, 4 pages. |
European Office Action, issued by the European Patent Office in connection with European Patent Application 07 852 430.3, on Feb. 3, 2014, 3 pages. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2012-152836, Jan. 14, 2014, 5 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080221400 A1 | Sep 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60905447 | Mar 2007 | US |