This application is related to and cross-references U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/804,517, filed concurrently, and entitled “A Method And System For Using Coherence Of Biological Responses As A Measure Of Performance Of A Media,” by Hans C. Lee, et. al., the contents of which application are hereby incorporated by reference.
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to the field of media and event rating based on physiological response from viewers.
2. Background of the Invention
Prior approaches to analyze viewers' responses to a media focus around a top down view, which is based on an averaged response to a survey, viewer “knobs”, physiological data or other rating schemes. This view limits the accuracy of the analysis due to cognitive bias of each individual viewer, as the viewer usually only remembers a small number of key events and forgets others. Consequently, one or two negative events in the media can dominate what the viewer thinks of the media afterwards, even if other positive events happened during the viewer's experience of the media.
The physiological data, which includes but is not limited to heart rate, brain waves, motion, muscle movement, galvanic skin response, and others responses of the viewer of the media, can give a trace of the viewer's emotion changes while he/she is watching the media. However, such data by itself does not create an objective measure of the media that allows the media or its events to be benchmarked and/or compared to other instances of media or events objectively.
Various embodiments of the present invention enable a bottom up analysis approach that derives physiological responses from measured physiological data of viewers of a media, and calculates scores of instances of an event type based on the physiological responses. The scores are then aggregated to rate the event type in addition to scoring the individual event instances. The approach can further form an overall rating of the media by aggregating the ratings of set of event types within the media.
a)-(c) show exemplary traces of physiological responses measured and exemplary dividing lines of a media in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
The invention is illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements. It should be noted that references to “an” or “one” or “some” embodiment(s) in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references mean at least one.
An effective media that connects with its audience/viewers is able to elicit the desired emotional response and it is well established that physiological response is a valid measurement for viewers' changes in emotions. Various embodiments of the present invention enable a bottom up analysis approach that derives physiological responses from measured physiological data of viewers of a media, and calculates scores of instances of an event type based on the physiological responses. The scores are then aggregated to rate the event type in addition to scoring the individual event instances. The approach can further form an overall rating of the media by aggregating the ratings of set of event types within the media. Such an approach allows instances of an event type to be objectively measured against prior instances of the same event type in the media, and the current media to be objectively measured against another media. In addition, a slice and combine approach can be adopted, which defines the media into one or more key and repeatable event types each having a plurality of event instances based on the physiological data measured, and then aggregates the score of every event instance and every event type to measure the viewers' overall responses to the media. The entire approach can also be automated as each step of the approach can be processed by a computing device, allowing for objective measure of a media without much human input or intervention.
A key principle behind the present invention is that one cannot look at an individual response to a media and make a judgment about the media. For a non-limiting example, a movie having multiple key scenes (events) can only be ranked accurately via a full analysis of viewers' responses to each of the scenes. Such analysis includes but is not limited to whether the intense scenes were actually intense, whether the love scenes turn viewers off or engage them, whether the viewers thought the jokes were funny, etc. Only when these individual scene types are aggregated and evaluate as a whole, can the movie be compared objectively and automatically to other movies in the same genre. In addition, only by knowing the typical response to be expected to a certain scene (event type), can a new instance of the scene be rated objectively.
Referring to
In some embodiments, a receiving module 105 is operable to accept and/or record the physiological data of each of a plurality of viewers watching the media, wherein the physiological data may be measured and/retrieved via other means and/or from a storage.
In some embodiments, a defining module 103 is operable to define and mark occurrences and durations of one or more event types each having a plurality of event instances happening in the media. The duration of each of event instances in the media can be constant, non-linear, or semi-linear in time. In some embodiments, such event definition may happen after the physiological data of the viewers has been measured, where the defining module 103 can define the media into one or more event types each having a plurality of event instances in the media based on the physiological data measured from the plurality of viewers.
In some embodiments, a rating module 106 is operable to derive a plurality of physiological responses from the physiological data measured from the plurality of viewers and calculate a score for each of the plurality of event instances of one of the event types in the media based on the plurality of physiological responses. Here, the physiological response can be one or more of: thought, liking, engagement, immersion, physical engagement, valence, and vigor, wherein thought and liking can be calculated from EEG. The rating module is further operable to rate the specific event type by aggregating the scores of instances of the event type once such scores are calculated. In addition, the rating module may optionally rate the media by aggregating ratings of the event types in the media.
Referring to
In some embodiments, the physiological data can be used to define the media into key, repeated event instances/types that are comparable across other media in the same genre. Referring to
In some embodiments, an integrated physiological sensing headset capable of sensing a plurality of measures of biological response 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, allows measurement to be done on many participants in a short amount of time and at low cost. No degradation of the headset occurs during use and the headset can be reused thousands of times.
In some embodiments, the viewers' physiological responses can be derived via a plurality of formulas, which use the physiological data of the viewers as inputs. Facial expression recognition, “knob” and other measures of emotion can also be used as inputs with comparable validity. Each of the derived physiological responses, which can include but are not limited to, “Engagement,” “Adrenaline,” “Thought,” and “Valence,” combines physiological data from multiple sensors into a multi-dimensional, simple-to-understand, representation of viewers' emotional response.
In some embodiments, the viewers' physiological responses (e.g., strong, boring, funny, engaging, etc) over a large number of instances of each event type can be calculated, analyzed and correlated with the measures of such responses to individual event types (e.g., branding moment, product introduction, video game cut scene, fight, level restart, etc) to create a context-specific event profile for each event type. These profiles can then be used to rate each event instance that happens in a new piece of media, creating, in some cases, thousands to millions of individual bottom up measures of the media over up to hundreds to thousands of participating viewers. Combining this many individual scores greatly increases the accuracy of measurement of the overall media compared to asking survey questions and getting one hundred responses to 1 to 10 dimensions of subjective measures. For a non-limiting example of 100 viewers watching a movie having 1000 key event instances, 5 dimensions of physiological responses (e.g., thought, engagement, valence, immersion, physical engagement) are calculated for each of the viewers, and 6 math permutations (e.g., average value, deviation from mean, 1st order trend, 2nd order trend, positive response, negative response, etc) are calculated for each event instance based on the physiological responses of the viewers. Consequently, 3,000,000 (100*1000*5*6) pieces of scores are available to rate the movie vs. 100-1000 measures from surveys. These scores are then combined to create an overall rating for the movie, such rating may include but is not limited to, Individual event (scene) strength—did players like cut scenes, were jokes funny, overall quality of the events, strong and weak types of events, strong and weak events of the movie—the events in the middle had a strong response but the beginning ones did not.
In some embodiments, the occurrence and duration of an event instance or type can be defined and recorded. For a non-limiting example, an event type in a video game may be defined as occurring every time a “battle tank” appears in the player's screen and lasting as long as it remains on the screen. For another non-limiting example, an event in a movie may be defined as occurring every time a joke is made. An event type may be defined in such a way that an instance of the event type occurs only once for each piece of media. Alternatively, the event type may also be defined in such a way that many instances of the event type occur in a media.
In some embodiments, event instances can be tagged for each recorded piece of media, allowing for efficient and accurate conclusions to be made. For a non-limiting example,
In some embodiments, a score can be generated for an event instance based on the physiological data or response of the viewer during the event instance using a formula or rule. In one embodiment, the formula can be based on expert knowledge of the desired response to the event type of the instance and the formula can take the form of a weighted sum of the changes in each of the derived physiological responses across the event instance. For a non-limiting example, the formula can be defined by a weighted sum of multiple inputs from each of physiological responses over time (vector), wherein each of the vectors may rise, fall, peak, reach high, reach low, or have a distinct profile. For a non-limiting example, there can be a profile of the physiological response to punch lines in jokes that correlates with how good the joke is based on the analysis of many advertisements. There can be two aspects of the profile: the first is that the “Thought” vector of physiological response must increase, showing that the viewer thought about what was happening directly before the punch line and during the first part of the punch line; the second is that the “Valence” or reward feeling for viewers must increase once the punch line is given, indicating that the viewers liked the punch line after engaging in thinking about the punch line. Thus, a mathematical profile of rise in Thought and Valence at specific times is created for the event type of a joke. Such profile can then be applied to each instance of a joke to assess the effectiveness of the punch line of the joke. Punch lines that do not fit this response profile will not create a good experience in viewers.
Score=0.25×(Thought Rose during punch line)+0.75×(Valence rose after punch line)
Where the resulting weights are 25% based on Thought rising during the punch line and 75% based on Valence rising after the punch line.
In some embodiments, scores of event instances in the media can be used to pinpoint whether and/or which of the event instances need to be improved or changed, and which of the event instances should be kept intact based on the physiological responses from the viewers. In the non-limiting example above, a punch line that does not fit its response profile and thus does not create a good experience in viewers should be improved.
In some embodiments, the number of variables used in the scoring formula can be very large and the formula can also be a higher ordered polynomial to account for non-linear scoring if need be. For a non-limiting example, a more complex version of the formula shown above would calculate the score based on how much thought and how much positive valence there is at each point during the joke. This would penalize small increases in Thought and Valence where people did not strongly engage in the joke, while rewarding punch lines which had very large rises in Thought and Valence, corresponding to strong engagement in the joke.
In some embodiments, a set of logical rules can be adopted, which define an event instance as “good” or “successful” as having a score above a predetermined number, whereby the formula outputs a score reflecting how engaging the event instance is. Other embodiments use the score for rankings or ratings are also possible. Referring back to the non-limiting example shown in
In some embodiments, the formula can utilize prior instances of similar event types in the current and/or other pieces of media to calculate the score of the instance. A set of rules can be created with viewers' physiological responses across those other similar events as inputs. For a non-limiting example, a score of 1 (representing “good” or “successful”) could be given to an instance of an event type if the slope of Engagement over the event exceeds the average slope of Engagement over other event instances of similar event types in other pieces of media. The exact implementation of this approach can be done many ways, and the following process is a non-limiting example of such implementation:
In some embodiments, a subset of the overall population of viewers can be aggregated to differentiate the responses for the subset, which groups the viewers by one or more of: race, gender, age, buying habits, demographics, and income. The averaged rating of the event type can then be associated and/or compared to such grouping of the viewers.
In some embodiments, the scores of event instances of an event type can be aggregated as input to a formula used to rate of the event type, where the formula may be mathematical or may be logical; it may also be designed by expert knowledge or by previous ratings of similar event types. Such aggregation can be done via one or more of:
In some embodiments, the rating process described above can be repeated for different types of events within the same media. In addition, the media itself can be rated with the ratings of different event types used as inputs to a rating formula. This rating formula or rule can also be based on expert knowledge or previous physiological response to the media as described above. For a non-limiting example, a media can be rated as “success” if a majority of its event types are rated as “success.” Alternatively, a media can be rated as “success” its event types are rated as “success” more than other comparable media. Other rules, linear or other rating scales can also be used.
One embodiment may be implemented using a conventional general purpose or a specialized digital computer or microprocessor(s) programmed according to the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the computer art. Appropriate software coding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers based on the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the software art. The invention may also be implemented by the preparation of integrated circuits or by interconnecting an appropriate network of conventional component circuits, as will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
One embodiment includes a computer program product which is a machine readable medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used to program one or more computing devices to perform any of the features presented herein. The machine readable medium can include, but is not limited to, one or more types of disks including floppy disks, optical discs, DVD, CD-ROMs, micro drive, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, DRAMs, VRAMs, flash memory devices, magnetic or optical cards, nanosystems (including molecular memory ICs), or any type of media or device suitable for storing instructions and/or data. Stored on any one of the computer readable medium (media), the present invention includes software for controlling both the hardware of the general purpose/specialized computer or microprocessor, and for enabling the computer or microprocessor to interact with a human viewer or other mechanism utilizing the results of the present invention. Such software may include, but is not limited to, device drivers, operating systems, execution environments/containers, and applications.
The foregoing description of the preferred embodiments of the present invention has been provided for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner skilled in the art. Particularly, while the concept “module” is used in the embodiments of the systems and methods described above, it will be evident that such concept can be interchangeably used with equivalent concepts such as, class, method, type, interface, bean, component, object model, and other suitable concepts. Embodiments were chosen and described in order to best describe the principles of the invention and its practical application, thereby enabling others skilled in the art to understand the invention, the various embodiments and with various modifications that are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/905,616, filed Mar. 8, 2007, and entitled “Method And System For Rating Media And Events In Media Based On Physiological Data,” by Hans C. Lee, et. al., and is hereby incorporated herein 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 |
5405957 | Tang et al. | 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 | LeDue | 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 et al. | 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 |
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 | Vieritio-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 | 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 |
2002056500 | 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 2006 | 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. Jun. 11, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Jun. 11, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/15019, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. Jun. 11, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/015019, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/15019, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” Sep. 8, 2009. |
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. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/14955, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/14955, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/14955, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,”1 page Sep. 8, 2009. |
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. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/16796,“PCTInternational Search Report,” 2 pgs. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/16796, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. Jul. 3, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/16796, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/16796, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” 1 page Sep. 8, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Notification of Transmittal the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. Feb. 20, 2007. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs. Feb. 20, 2007. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US06/31569, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. Feb. 20, 2007. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US06/31569,“Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Mar. 13, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US06/31569, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Mar. 4, 2008. |
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. Apr. 8, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Apr. 8, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20714, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. Apr. 8, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20714, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20714, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” 1 page Sep. 8, 2008. |
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. May 6, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. May 6, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/17764, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 7 pgs. May 6, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/17764, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” 1 page Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/17764, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” 1 page Sep. 8, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. May 13, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. May 13, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US07/20713, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. May 13, 2008. |
Form PCT/IB/326, PCT/US07/20713, “Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Sep. 17, 2009. |
Form PCT/IB/373, PCT/US07/20713, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability.” 1 page Sep. 8, 2009. |
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, Feb. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs. Feb. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/09110, “PCT Wrtten Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 4 pgs, Feb. 20, 2009. |
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. Nov. 7, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Feb. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75640, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,”3 pgs. Feb. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/220, PCT/US08/78633, “PCT Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration,” 1 pg. Dec. 5, 2008. |
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. Dec. 5, 2008. |
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. Jan. 21, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Jan. 21, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82147, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 13 pgs. Jan. 21, 2009. |
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. Jan. 21, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Jan. 21, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/82149, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 14 pgs. Jan. 21, 2009. |
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. Nov. 28, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Nov. 28, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75651, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 9 pgs. Nov. 28, 2008. |
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. Mar. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Mar. 20, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85723, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 7 pgs. Mar. 20, 2009. |
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, Feb. 27, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT International Search Report,” 2 pgs. Feb. 27, 2009. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/85203, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 6 pgs. Feb. 27, 2009. |
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. Nov. 19, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/210, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT International Search Report,” 3 pgs, Nov. 19, 2008. |
Form PCT/ISA/237, PCT/US08/75649, “PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” 5 pgs. Nov. 19, 2008. |
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. Electroencephalpgraphy 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. 1981. |
Willis, M. & Hodson, V.; Discover Your Child's Learning Style: Children Learn in Unique Ways-Here's the Key to Ever 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/845,993, on Feb. 19, 2014, 10 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. 200780052879.2, 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. 200780052879.2, 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. |
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. |
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 September 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. |
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. |
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. 2010-501190, on Oct. 2, 2012, 5 pages. |
Notification of Reason(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552658, 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. |
Final Decision of Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552656, on Jan. 21, 2013, 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. 2009-552661, Apr. 24, 2013, 2 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. |
Notification of Reasons(s) for Rejection, issued by the Japanese Intellectual Property Office in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-552660, Mar. 13, 2013, 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. 11/779,814, 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. 11/845,993, on Apr. 24, 2012, 8 pages. |
Advisory Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/845,993, on Jul. 20, 2012, 4 pages. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/845,993, Aug. 4, 2011, 12 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. |
Office Action, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,634, on Feb. 26, 2013, 24, 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, onJan. 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. Jan. 14, 2000. |
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, A1 Access Foundation and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, USA, 1996, 17 pages. |
Dagan et al., “Mistake-Driven Learning in Text Categorization,” in EMNLP '97, 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1997, 9 pages. |
Delahaye Group, “Delahaye Group to Offer 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, Mar. 3, 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 Busiess 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. |
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. |
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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080222671 A1 | Sep 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60905616 | Mar 2007 | US |