The present invention relates in general to presenting tasks in a network, and in particular to prioritizing tasks made available by devices in a network such as a home network.
In a home network environment where multiple networked consumer electronic devices are available, the number of tasks available for the user to execute can be potentially large. Among the available tasks some tasks may be totally irrelevant to the user due to their current context and some may be less relevant compared to the rest and thus less likely to be executed by the user. This may occur for many reasons: (1) the task may use devices that do not involve a device that the user is currently using and therefore is unlikely to be chosen by the user: (2) the task may use several devices that are based in other rooms, combining the current device with a display device in another room is an unlikely combination because the user is unlikely to be able to see the output of the request.
Conventionally, a system discovers devices and thereby the services available in an ad-hoc environment. That system further identifies the services that can be aggregated and finally suggests the possible service combinations to the user. While suggesting the aggregated service combinations to the user, the system scores the services based on any user preferences set and execution history for the user and displays the service with the highest score to the user. However, in such a system, the services are ranked based on user preferences and execution history without considering the context of the user and, hence, results in scoring the services in a way that does not reflect the user intentions at that particular instant.
The present invention addresses the above shortcomings. In one embodiment the present invention provides a method and system that facilitates prioritization of tasks available through the devices in a home network. The tasks comprise user level descriptions of the high-level actions a user can perform using the underlying devices. By prioritizing tasks for a user, the present invention aims to minimize the effort required to compare and comprehend the usefulness and feasibility of tasks. In doing so, the number of tasks shown to a user as being possible, can be reduced and the task identified as the highest priority task for a given user can be used by the application software as the suggested ‘most likely’ task for the user. Further, tasks identified as having a lower priority can be interpreted by the application as tasks that are less likely to be chosen by the user. For example, a task that involves devices in different rooms is possible, but in all probability, it will not be chosen by the user.
To provide accurate prioritization, the present invention allows prioritization of tasks for a particular user based on the context of the user and in general based on factors such as the devices needed for the tasks, the devices in the system, and the attributes of the devices in the system, etc., thereby, identifying tasks that would most likely be preferred and executed by the user.
These and other features, aspects and advantages of the present invention will become understood with reference to the following description, appended claims and accompanying figures.
In one embodiment the present invention provides a method and system that facilitates prioritization of tasks available through the devices in a home network. The tasks comprise user level descriptions of the high-level actions a user can perform using the underlying devices. By prioritizing tasks for a user, the present invention aims to minimize the effort required to compare and comprehend the usefulness and feasibility of tasks. In doing so, the number of tasks shown to a user as being possible, can be reduced and the task identified as the highest priority task for a given user can be used by the application software as the suggested ‘most likely’ task for the user. Further, tasks identified as having a lower priority can be interpreted by the application as tasks that are less likely to be chosen by the user. For example, a task that involves devices in different rooms is possible, but in all probability, it will not be chosen by the user.
To provide accurate prioritization, the present invention allows prioritization of tasks for a particular user based on the context of the user and in general based on factors such as the devices needed for the tasks, the devices in the system, and the attributes of the devices in the system, etc., thereby, identifying tasks that would most likely be preferred and executed by the user.
In one implementation, the present invention provides a controller that infers the degree of relevance of a task to a user, based on various factors such as e.g.: (1) the context of the user including the location of the user, (2) the device used by the user to browse/select tasks, (3) the location of devices used for each tasks, (4) the quality and the capability of the devices that are needed to execute the task, etc. The controller assigns a score for each task based on the inferred degree of relevance, prioritizes the tasks based on the scores and makes this list of tasks available to a client user interface (UI) application to utilize.
The client application may use the task list in a variety of ways, including e.g.: (1) presenting the task list to the user by order of task score with the ones identified as being the most relevant on the top of the list and the less relevant ones beneath, (2) presenting the top few tasks to the user, (3) using the list to pick the top matching task according to an initial request from the user (e.g., user selected ‘Play’ and ‘Bedroom’, wherein the top matching item may be ‘Play DVD in the Bedroom in Widescreen’), and (4) using the top item of the list as a recommendation or default choice of the most likely task for the user.
The devices 20 and 30, respectively, can implement the HTTP protocol for communication and protocol therebetween. Though in the example described herein the HTTP protocol is utilized by the network 10, those skilled in the art will recognize that the present invention is useful with other network communication protocols that utilize the client-server model. An example device 20 can be a VCR, DVD, computer, etc. Further, an example client device 30 can be a TV, computer, etc.
The network 10 further includes at least one Controller 60 that, as discussed, infers the degree of relevance of a task to a user, based on various factors.
The Controller 60 includes a Context Manager module 62 that gathers user context information such as the location and the device used by the user. In this example, location of each device is provided by e.g. the device itself (set at install time), by a configuration file (for devices that cannot provide their location), etc. The devices/configuration files that run the user's client program also contain an additional piece of information called a “cookie”. When the user starts the client program, the client program transmits a cookie to the Controller 60. The Controller 60 matches the cookie provided by the client program with the cookie in the device configuration files. The location of the device whose cookie matches the client cookie is identified as the location of the user.
Finally, content meta-data contains the location of the content. Content meta-data comprises information about the content. For example, a music file contains the track name, the artist, the album, the track number, MIME-type etc. According to an embodiment of the present invention, additional meta-data is provided in the system. For example, the location information is added to the content meta-data. This piece of data allows correlating location of the content with the location of the user.
The location for the content is determined from the location of the device that generates or stores the content. The location information can also be obtained from sensors such as GPS on the device. Though some consumer electronics (CE) in a home network may not be equipped with location sensors, use of such location sensors are contemplated by the present invention.
Once the devices in the home network are discovered, the Task Generation module 70 gathers the task and device descriptions from the devices and determines the tasks achievable in the home network based on these descriptions The Task Generation module 70 obtains: (1) device function descriptions, wherein each device function description describes a function that a device can perform, and (2) task descriptions, wherein each task description describes the device functionality a certain task requires. The Task Generation module 70 then generates combinations of tasks, wherein a task comprises a user level description of the high-level actions a user can perform using the devices. In one example the user level description comprises a task suggestion based on the obtained task descriptions and device function descriptions (i.e., each task suggestion represents a user task based on one or more of the obtained device function descriptions and task descriptions). The combinations of tasks generated by the Orchestrator module are called task combinations (TC) and the set of devices needed to execute a task combination are referred to as device combinations.
The Controller 60 further includes a Prioritization Module 64. According to the Prioritization Module 64, the task combinations are then scored based on the features supported by the device, and a set of policies to score the combinations based on the device and user's context. The result of this ranking is a set of scores formulated from groups or levels of scores. Each score level represents a level of contextual importance. Within that score level, the items are ranked on secondary factors such as device scores. As such, the best devices appear first for the level of contextual match (i.e., those matching fully the policy for that level may be ranked higher than others that match only part of the policy of that level). Doing so, allows a range of scores using simple integers to be computed while allowing new devices to enter and leave the home network without causing scores of other combinations to change.
The factors affecting such prioritization are user, as well as task/device, dependent. Therefore, high priority tasks for one user may be different between different home networks, because the home networks may contain different devices. In addition, the same user in one room for a home network may have different tasks based on history, preferences or security/access limitations. Further, history or learning-based prioritization can be added orthogonally in the scoring and categorization.
In addition to the user location information the Prioritization Module 64 determines the capability information of the devices using the device descriptions provided by the device manufacturer, providing information about various device attributes and how they compare against other attributes. Device descriptions provide the functionalities of the devices, for example, whether a device is a media store, whether it is an output device (renderer), etc. In addition, device descriptions include attribute information such as screen size and an indication of the type of relation between attribute values and the magnitude of the difference between the attribute values (comparison scale for that particular attribute type). For example, screen size is measured in inches. Two inches is twice as much as one inch, whereas sound is measured in decibels where 2 dB is 100 more than 1 dB.
In one example operation, device attributes are categorized into two types by a ranking scheme in the Task Generation module 70, comprising: Numeric attributes (NA) and Non-numeric attributes (NNA). For example, a NA value such as screen size is processed using a ‘greater than’ relationship: A 60″ is better than a 30″ TV simply by the magnitude of the NA (i.e., 60″ is ‘greater than’ 30″).
Further, NNA values are scored by their relative score between themselves and other NNA values for the same attribute. For instance, ‘betterThan’ and ‘sameAs’ relations are used to compare two NNAs. The NNA description also includes a ‘relativeScore’ property which indicates the “degree of betterness” (i.e., ‘betterness’). From this ‘relativeScore’ and ‘betterness’, a scale can be computed on the NNA values. Other types of scoring can be also be used.
Using this attribute information, a table is generated where each attribute has a score associated with it. To ensure that the scale is constant, it is cached such that only when new devices or technologies enter the home network does the table need to be recomputed. Further, the table is recomputed only if the new device/technology affects the upper or lower bound of the scale. The score of each device is computed by adding the scores of attributes that are supported by the device.
Referring to the functional block diagram in
In one implementation of the Controller 60, the example steps in the flowchart of
Referring to the flowchart in
The result of the above steps is a set of scores, grouped into categories (e.g., scores from 100-200 are for task combinations with all devices in the same room, scores from 200-300 are for combinations with renderers in the same room, etc.). Over this scoring, the user context is applied so that combinations that most match the user's context (e.g., location) and the context of the devices are higher than others (e.g., in distance rooms).
Referring back to
Although the primary embodiment implemented for the prioritization approach described herein is for a home network environment, those skilled in the art will recognize that the present invention can be applied to other types of environment such as e.g. an office space, airport, etc.
The present invention has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain preferred versions thereof; however, other versions are possible. Therefore, the spirit and scope of the appended claims should not be limited to the description of the preferred versions contained herein.
Priority is claimed from U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 60/643,097, filed on Jan. 7, 2005, incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5410326 | Goldstein | Apr 1995 | A |
5530861 | Diamant et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5544321 | Theimer et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5555376 | Theimer et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5611050 | Theimer et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5812865 | Theimer et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5910799 | Carpenter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6169991 | Tsukahara | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6256019 | Allport | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6389288 | Kuwahara et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6563430 | Kemink et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6792323 | Krzyzanowski et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6931630 | Cotner et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6954737 | Kalantar et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6957075 | Iverson | Oct 2005 | B1 |
7024256 | Krzyzanowski et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7046263 | Abbott et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7064675 | Zigmond et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7076255 | Parupudi et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7170422 | Nelson et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7184848 | Krzyzanowski et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7206559 | Meade, II | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7307746 | Inoue | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7336942 | Wang | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346663 | Abbott et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7493294 | Flinn et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7522549 | Karaoguz et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7533079 | Naito et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7613285 | Hay et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7681203 | Mandato et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7707267 | Lisitsa et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
20010032132 | Moran | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020119788 | Parupudi et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138327 | Mello et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030046401 | Abbott et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030073412 | Meade, II | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088534 | Kalantar et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040068507 | Inoue | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040100505 | Cazier | May 2004 | A1 |
20040163073 | Krzyzanowski et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040176118 | Strittmatter et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187152 | Francis et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040230636 | Masuoka et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050035846 | Zigmond et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055472 | Krzyzanowski et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050108354 | Lisitsa et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114493 | Mandato et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050164725 | Naito et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050232242 | Karaoguz et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050233748 | Robinson et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246726 | Labrou et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267770 | Banavar et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283532 | Kim et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288035 | Wang | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060064693 | Messer et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064694 | Messer et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069602 | Messer et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060147001 | Ha et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060149905 | Park et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156252 | Sheshagiri et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070233287 | Sheshagiri et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070266384 | Labrou et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0626635 | Nov 1994 | EP |
0801342 | Oct 1997 | EP |
1168124 | Jan 2002 | EP |
1431875 | Jun 2004 | EP |
1458140 | Sep 2004 | EP |
2852173 | Sep 2004 | FR |
11-352446 | Dec 1999 | JP |
2000-266551 | Sep 2000 | JP |
2002-049556 | Feb 2002 | JP |
2002-063033 | Feb 2002 | JP |
2002-116971 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002-533802 | Oct 2002 | JP |
2004-266453 | Sep 2004 | JP |
10-2000-0033089 | Jun 2000 | KR |
10-2001-0014271 | Feb 2001 | KR |
2001-0041425 | May 2001 | KR |
2002-0022049 | Mar 2002 | KR |
10-2003-0021251 | Mar 2003 | KR |
1020050046580 | May 2005 | KR |
10-2006-0043333 | May 2006 | KR |
10-2006-0051202 | May 2006 | KR |
10-2006-0051104 | Jun 2006 | KR |
1020060068518 | Jun 2006 | KR |
10-2006-0092993 | Aug 2006 | KR |
10-2006-0063326 | Sep 2006 | KR |
WO 0028436 | May 2000 | WO |
0038039 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0039964 | Jul 2000 | WO |
WO 0039964 | Jul 2000 | WO |
WO 0059230 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 0169380 | Sep 2001 | WO |
WO 2004031937 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO 2004062227 | Jul 2004 | WO |
2004081713 | Sep 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Paolucci, M. et al., “Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities”, In First Int. Semantic Web. Conf. 2002, pp. 333-347, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/paolucci02semantic.html, United States. |
Sycara, K. et al., “Larks: Dynamic Matchmaking among Heterogeneous Software Agents in Cyberspace”, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002, pp. 173-203, Kluwer Academic Publishers, http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/˜softagents/papers/Larks.pdf, United States. |
Masuoka, R. et al., “Task Computing—Semantic-web enabled, user-driven, interactive environments”, Fujitsu Laboratories of America, Inc., College Park, Maryland, pp. 1, http://www.flacp.fujitsulabs.com/, United States. |
Gonzalez-Castillo, J. et al., “Description Logics for Matchmaking of Services”, Hewlett-Packard Company, 2001, pp. 1-13, http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-265.pdf, Bristol, United Kingdom. |
Avancha, S. et al., “Enhanced Service Discovery in Bluetooth”, IEEE Computer, Jun. 28, 2002. pp. 96-99, vol. 35, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, United States. |
Chakraborty, D. et al., “DReggie: Semantic Service Discovery for M-Commerce Applications”, Workshop on Reliable and Secure Applications in Mobile Environment, in Conjunction with 20th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Oct. 12, 2001, pp. 1-6, http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/49/, United States. |
Milojicic, D. et al., “Appliance Aggregation Architecture (A3)”, HP Labs Technical report HPL-2002-277, Jul. 3, 2003, pp. 1-10, United States. |
Hendler, J. et al., “Integrating Applications on the Semantic Web,” Journal of the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan, Oct. 2002, pp. 676-680, vol. 122(10), United States. |
Haarslev, V. et al., “Description of the RACER System and its Applications”, in Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics 2001 (DL2001), Aug. 2001, Stanford, pp. 701-705, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/haarslev01description.html, United States. |
“OWL Web Ontology Language Reference”, WC3 Semantic Web, Dec. 9, 2003, http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed.html, United States. |
Hill, E., “Jess, the Rule Engine for the Java Platform”, Java Expert System Shell, http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess/, United States. |
Connolly, D. et al., “DAML+OIL (Mar. 2001) Reference Description,” W3C Note, Dec. 18, 2001, pp. 1-17, States. |
Kopena, J.B. et al., “DAMLJessKB: A tool for reasoning with the Semantic Web”. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2003, pp. 74-77, vol. 18(3), United States. |
“DAML+OIL Specification”, Mar. 2001, pp. 1-13, http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil, United States. |
Berners-Lee, T. et al., “The Semantic Web: A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities”, Scientific American.com, May 17, 2001, pp. 1-5, http://www.sciam.com, United States. |
Berners-Lee, T. et al., WC3 Semantic Web, Technology and Society Domain, “Semantic Web”, pp. 1-5, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/, United States. |
European Search Report and Search Opinion; Application No. 06250036.8-1525; dated Sep. 17, 2007. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546 mailed Jan. 5, 2010. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,968 mailed Feb. 12, 2009. |
U.S. Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/394,968 mailed Aug. 25, 2008. |
U.S. Non-final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/948,399 mailed Mar. 17, 2009. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/948,399 mailed Oct. 27, 2009. |
U.S. Non-final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/947,774 mailed Dec. 15, 2008. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/947,774 mailed Aug. 31, 2009. |
U.S. Non-final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121 mailed Dec. 19, 2008. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121 mailed Sep. 2, 2009. |
U.S. Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546 mailed Jan. 22, 2009. |
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546 mailed Oct. 15, 2008. |
U.S. Non-final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546 mailed Apr. 25, 2008. |
R. Kumar, V. Poladian, I. Greenberg, A. Messer, and D. Milojicic, User-Centric Appliance Aggregation, HP Labs: Tech Report: HPL-2002-227, Oct. 2, 2002. |
Office Action dated Jun. 16, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546. |
Lashina et al., “The context aware personal remote control: a case study on context awareness”, published 2003. |
Chinese Third Office Action dated Aug. 4, 2010 issued for Chinese Patent Application No. 200510132458.3, filed Aug. 5, 2009, pp. 1-12, Beijing, China (English-language translation included). |
Office Action is corresponding Japanese Application No. 2006-001541, mailed Jan. 4, 2011. |
Office Action (and English translation) in corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2005-0112970, mailed Nov. 10, 2006. |
Decision of Grant in in corresponding Korean Application No. 10-2005-0112970, mailed Jul. 16, 2007. |
Huh et al., “A Policy-based Context Management Architecture for Ubiquitous Computing Environment,” Nov. 3, 2004. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546, mailed Mar. 8, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121, mailed Apr. 20, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 10/947,774, mailed Apr. 11, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 10/948,399, mailed Jun. 3, 2011. |
Office Action in corresponding Japanese Application No. 2005-274134, mailed Feb. 1, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 29, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 10/948,399. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 18, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 10/947,774. |
Almeida et al., “Abstract Interactions and Interaction Refinement in Model-Driven Design,” Proceedings of the 2005 Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference, Sep. 19-23, 2005, 14 pages. |
Office Action in Japanese Application No. 2005-274135, mailed Feb. 1, 2011. |
Office Action dated Sep. 28, 2007 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049529. |
Office Action dated Jun. 15, 2007 from Chinese Application No. 200510104950X. |
Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2006 from Korean Application No. 10-2005-0084649. |
Decision to Grant dated May 29, 2007 from Korean Application No. 10-2005-0084649. |
Lee et al, “Coupling structural and functional models for interaction design,” Interacting With Computers, Butterworth-Heinemann, GB, vol. 16, No. 1, Feb. 2004, pp. 133-161, XP004908657 ISSN: 0953-5438. |
Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2006 from Korean Application No. 10-2005-0083589. |
Decision to Grant dated May 29, 2007 from Korean Application No. 10-2005-0083589. |
Office Action in Japanese Application No. 2006-001541, mailed Aug. 23, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 27, 2012 from U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121. |
Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 23, 2012 from U.S. Appl. No. 10/947,774. |
Chinese Office Action dated Jun. 2, 2011 from Chinese Application No. 200510132458.3. |
Chinese Office Action dated Nov. 2, 2011 from Chinese Application No. 200510132458.3. |
Notification of Granting of Patent Right Invention from Chinese Application No. 200510104949.7. |
European Search Report from EP05255590 mailed Mar. 1, 2012. |
Search Opinion from EP Publication No. 1679828, dated Apr. 6, 2006. |
Search Report from EP Publication No. 1679828, dated Apr. 6, 2006. |
Search Report from EP Publication No. 1640838, dated Nov. 16, 2005. |
Exam Report from EP Publication No. 1640838, dated May 5, 2006. |
Search Report from EP Publication No. 1640839, dated Nov. 24, 2005. |
Exam Report from EP Publication No. 1640839, dated May 5, 2006. |
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 1, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 11/200,546. |
Office Action for Chinese Application 200610000398.4, dated Dec. 21, 2007. |
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 5, 2011 from U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121. |
Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2010 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049497. |
Reexamination dated Oct. 9, 2010 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049497. |
Office Action dated Aug. 15, 2008 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049497. |
Office Action dated Dec. 28, 2007 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049497. |
Office Action dated Jun. 15, 2007 from Chinese Application No. 2005101049497. |
Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 27, 2007 from Korean Application No. 9-5-2007-023065177. |
Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2006 from Korean Application No. 9-5-2006-065657876. |
Office Action dated Nov. 21, 2008 from Chinese Application No. 2005101324583. |
Office Action dated May 22, 2009 from Chinese Application No. 2005101324583. |
Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2006 from European Application No. 05257951.3. |
Search Report dated Apr. 13, 2006 from European Application No. 05257951.3. |
Office Action dated Nov. 22, 2006 from Korean Application No. 9-5-2006-069705515. |
Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 27, 2007 from Korean Application No. 9-5-2007-023304342. |
U.S. Notice of Allowance mailed Nov. 16, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/950,121. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060156307 A1 | Jul 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60643097 | Jan 2005 | US |