This disclosure relates generally to market research, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus to identify affinity between segment attributes and product characteristics.
In recent years, retailers, marketers, and manufacturers have tried to predict which products can be marketed/displayed together to promote sales. These predictions are used, for example, to design promotions, print coupons at the point of sale, design retail floor plans, and/or design products to complement existing products. Market research entities often rely on (a) information generated by loyalty programs, (b) demographics, and/or (c) databases of past transactions to provide product recommendations to consumers, marketers, retailers and manufacturers.
Examples disclosed herein may be used to predict which consumer segments should be targeted for marketing of a product of interest. Additionally, examples disclosed herein may be used to identify candidate product characteristics to be added to a product that improve a likelihood of success in a segment of interest. Marketing for the product of interest may include coupons, cross-promotional offers, marketing suggestions and/or product development research. One or more predictions are generated based on affinity relationships associated with characteristic values of the product of interest and affinity relationships associated with attributes of one or more consumer segments. As used herein, “product affinity” of one or more products refers to one or more metrics that reflect and/or otherwise predict a likelihood of which products or characteristic (e.g., product characteristics, user characteristics, etc.) values go together in a transaction (e.g., a shopping basket, etc.) with an occurrence threshold and/or a level of confidence. As used herein, “segment affinity” of one or more consumer segments refers to one or more metrics that reflect and/or otherwise predict a likelihood of which segment attributes (e.g., age, gender, number of children in a household, etc.) go together in a transaction (e.g., a shopping basket, etc.) with an occurrence threshold and/or a level of confidence. As used herein, general reference(s) to “affinity” refers to either a product affinity, a segment affinity, and/or one or more metrics indicative of a likelihood that a particular product characteristic and a particular segment attribute occur together with a level of confidence.
A high affinity value has a corresponding high level of confidence that a particular product characteristic and a particular segment will occur together. A low affinity value has a corresponding low level of confidence that a particular product characteristic and a particular segment will occur together. An association is a relationship between a first group of one or more products/characteristic values/segment attributes and a second group of one or more products/characteristic values/segment attributes, where an appearance of the first group in a transaction implies that the second group may also appear in the transaction. An affinity rule is an association that has a greater than a threshold level of support of observed occurrences and a greater than a threshold level of confidence of such occurrences, as described in further detail below.
A market research entity (MRE) may establish a threshold (e.g., minimum) level of support and a corresponding threshold (e.g., minimum) level of confidence to discard insignificant associations and/or to discard one or more associations that occur infrequently. An example MRE may establish a threshold level of confidence of, for example, 5%. Further, an example product association may state that a “package of cookies implies milk” and may be denoted with an arrow symbol, such as (“a package of cookies”→“milk”). The example association may have a confidence level of 27%. An example affinity rule may state that, with a 27% level of confidence, a package of cookies implies milk (i.e., 27% of the transactions that contain a package of cookies also contain milk). In other examples, a specific product of interest may be analyzed to identify which characteristics exhibit a relatively highest affinity with other characteristics. A yogurt product, for example, exhibits relatively strong affinity between its characteristics of low calories, high protein, and low carbohydrates.
In still other examples, the MRE identifies consumer groups (e.g., segments) associated with respective consumers that are based on geographical, demographic, behavioral and/or lifestyle attributes. An example segment association may state that “healthful food consumers implies regular exercise routines.” Stated differently, segment attributes of the example healthful food consumers having the strongest relative affinity include people who follow regular exercise routines, maintain regular physician appointments, eat healthy foods, and pay attention to nutrition.
Examples disclosed herein identify, in some instances, potential affinity between the healthful food consumer attributes and the yogurt product characteristics. That affinity may be used to predict which segments will likely buy a product/service of interest. Without information that indicates whether a product of interest is likely to be adopted by (e.g., purchase) a particular segment of interest, then marketing efforts toward that segment of interest may be wasteful. Additionally, one or more other products of interest may be analyzed to identify corresponding product affinity values to determine respective segment affinity values. As such, those segments that represent the segment affinity values may be identified and/or predicted as one or more target segment groups to which the candidate product of interest will likely succeed with marketing efforts. As such, examples disclosed herein reduce (e.g., minimize) money and/or resources when marketing the product(s) of interest, thereby improving a market success of the product(s) of interest by targeting those particular segments having a higher likelihood of purchasing.
The MRE may maintain a database of products that associates trade item numbers (e.g., Universal Product Codes (UPC), International Article Numbers (EAN), Japanese Article Numbers (JAN), International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN), Manufacturer Part Numbers (MPN), etc.) with product identifiers (IDs) and/or other product information (e.g., short description, long description, brand, manufacturer, trade item number history, etc.). The product ID may be a unique identifier separate from the trade item number and may be assigned to a product by the MRE. The product IDs may identify products that are part of a transaction or a series of related transactions. Additionally, the MRE may maintain a database of characteristic values to associate product IDs with characteristic values. Characteristic values are a discrete set of uniform descriptors defined by the MRE to categorize products in the products database. Characteristic values include a greater degree of descriptive granularity compared to product information (e.g., short description, long description, etc.) associated with a product in the product database. In some examples, the characteristic values include brand, product type and color, packaging and packaging materials, and marketing claims (e.g. organic, low calorie, etc.), etc. In some examples, a product ID may be associated with a large number of characteristic values. In some examples, the database of products and the database of characteristic values may be linked.
Generating product affinity rules using characteristic values allows for generation of targeted product recommendations. Continuing the example discussed above, a package of cookies might be associated with the characteristic values of “high fiber” and “gluten free.” An example affinity rule might state that “high fiber” and “gluten free” characteristic values are related to “skim” with an 80% confidence level. Stated differently, 80% of transactions that include both “high fiber” and “gluten free” characteristic values will also include a “skim” characteristic value. Thus, when a package of high fiber, gluten free cookies appears in a customer's basket, a product recommendation (e.g., a coupon, an advertisement, an instant discount, etc.) to buy skim milk may be generated instead of a generic product recommendation to buy milk.
In some examples, when a commercial establishment (e.g., a retailer, a supermarket, a warehouse store, a sports equipment store, etc.) wants to decide which products to stock, example methods and/or apparatus disclosed herein provide strategic information for a product recommendation (e.g., a marketing plan, a layout plan, etc.) by recommending item combinations to stock and/or new products to supplement sales of existing products. For example, a commercial establishment that wants to expand its health food sales may receive a product recommendation to stock both high fiber, gluten free cookies and skim milk. In some examples, a manufacturer that wants to engineer a new product and/or supplement an existing product line may receive a product recommendation (e.g. analysis report, etc.) to create a skim milk latte to supplement strong sales of high fiber, gluten free cookies.
Generating segment affinity rules using segment attribute values allows for identification of segment attributes that are likely to occur together in a purchase decision. The consumer segment of healthful food consumers exhibits relatively strongly associated attributes of regular check-ups, healthy eating, exercise and reading nutrition labels. As such, an example segment affinity rule/association might state that the presence of the healthy eating attribute in a group (e.g., a segment group of interest) suggests a co-presence of the exercise attribute, in which these two example attributes have a 70% likelihood of occurring together. In other examples, the presence of an age attribute of 28-32 and a marriage attribute suggests a co-presence of an attribute of the presence of children in the household. Knowledge of the segment affinities for a particular group facilitates an ability to consider other group attributes that are likely to occur when targeting, for example, marketing efforts (e.g., marketing efforts of a particular product having particular characteristics that have a degree of affinity with one or more segment attributes).
In some examples, a customer may bring products to a transaction processor (e.g., a register, an online shopping cart, a household-based scanner, etc.). At the transaction processor, trade item numbers (e.g., Universal Product Codes (UPC), International Article Numbers (EAN), Japanese Article Numbers (JAN), International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN), Manufacturer Part Numbers (MPN), etc.) associated with the products are scanned (e.g., at a register) and/or retrieved from metadata associated with a product (e.g., at an ecommerce transaction). These products may be grouped to form a new transaction record associated with a transaction identifier (ID). A transaction ID is a value that identifies the transaction record and/or trade item numbers that belong to the transaction record. The new transaction record contains the trade item numbers processed in a transaction (e.g., the trade item numbers associated with the products in a customer's shopping basket at checkout, etc.). In some examples, one or more trade item numbers are sent to the MRE before a transaction is completed (e.g., as the trade item numbers are scanned and/or collected by the transaction processor, etc.). In other examples, the trade item numbers are sent to the MRE as the transaction record when the transaction is complete. As described in further detail below, when the transaction is complete, a new set of affinity rules may be generated using the new transaction and one or more existing transactions from a transaction database. A product recommendation may then be generated. In some examples, the MRE may send the product recommendation to a retailer associated with the transaction. The retailer, in some examples, presents (e.g., via a coupon, via an advertisement, via an instant discount, via a personalized shopping portal, etc.) the product recommendation to the customer associated with the transaction.
In other examples, the MRE seeks insight regarding correlations between (a) certain product characteristics and/or characteristic values of a product of interest and (b) consumer segments and/or attributes associated with one or more consumer segments. In the event correlations (e.g., affinities) are identified between one or more product characteristics and one or more segment attributes, then predictions may be made for the product of interest regarding which target segments will likely result in successful marketing efforts and/or a prediction of which target segments are likely to buy one or more products/services of interest.
The MRE of the illustrated example of
In the illustrated example of
The example MRE 102 of
In the illustrated example of
In the example illustrated in
Returning to the illustrated example of
In the example illustrated in
While a number of permutations for a given transaction set may be large, examples disclosed herein identify particular item sets (permutations) that exhibit a threshold number of occurrences. As disclosed above, product affinity refers to a metric that reflects a likelihood of which characteristic values occur together in a transaction with an occurrence threshold and/or a level of confidence. As such, the example product affinity generator 204 then generates frequent item sets from the item sets. As used herein, frequent item sets are item sets that have a threshold (e.g., minimum) level of support. In the illustrated example, support for an item set (e.g. item set X) is defined in a manner consistent with example Equation (1).
In some examples, the threshold level of support is a minimum threshold percentage value defined by the MRE 102.
In some examples, the product affinity generator 204 generates the frequent item sets by using a frequent item set analysis. The frequent item set analysis may include, for example, a frequent-pattern growth algorithm, an apriori algorithm, a CLOSET algorithm, a CHARM algorithm, an Opus algorithm, and/or any other frequent item set analysis technique. In a frequent-pattern growth algorithm, for example, the product affinity generator 204 of the illustrated example constructs a frequent-pattern tree and iterates through conditional trees to generate the item sets from the transaction sets. In such examples, the product affinity generator 204 separates item sets that have a threshold (e.g., minimum) level of support (e.g., frequent item sets) and discards the item sets that do not have the threshold (e.g., minimum) level of support. In some examples, before generating frequent item sets, the example product affinity generator 204 removes characteristic values from the transaction sets 504 for characteristic values with counts on the map and/or table of characteristic value counts that do not exceed a frequency support threshold defined by the MRE 102.
In the example illustrated in
(S→(F−S)), Equation (2)
where S is a nonempty subset of frequent item set F, S is the left hand side (LHS) of the association, and (F−S) is the right hand side (RHS) of the association. For example, a frequent item set {A, B, C} may have the associations of (A,B→C), (B,C→A), (A,C→B), (C→A,B), (B→A,C), and (A→B,C). The example product affinity generator 204 of
Product affinity rules are associations generated from frequent item sets that have a level of confidence above and/or otherwise satisfy a threshold (e.g., minimum) level of confidence as defined by the MRE 102.
As a quantity of additional transaction sets is evaluated, one or more product affinity rules is added to and/or updated with the example product recommender 208. As such, in response to receiving and/or otherwise retrieving a new transaction set (e.g., a transaction set 504 associated with a transaction identifier 214 representing one or more products purchased by a consumer during a shopping trip), the example product recommender 208 identifies one or more previously developed/calculated product affinity rules to identify one or more additional products having a likelihood of purchase.
In the example illustrated in
In still other examples, the product recommender 208 generates a ranked list of products having a greatest relative likelihood of being purchased in the respective transaction. The ranked list of products may be arranged based on respective level of confidence values (e.g., scores), such that products having the highest relative confidence value score are placed first, while relatively lower confidence value scores for other products have respectively lower rankings.
In some examples, a market researcher may wish to identify one or more appropriate target markets for the example products. For example, the products deemed to have the strongest product affinity with each other may also have a corresponding greater or lesser likelihood of purchase depending on particular attributes of a consumer segment. Example methods, apparatus, systems and/or articles of manufacture disclosed herein identify relationships between product characteristics and segment attributes. In operation, examples disclosed herein facilitate predictive analytics to determine which consumer segments are likely to purchase particular products of interest. Additionally or alternatively, examples disclosed herein may facilitate simulations of new products to identify which consumer/market segments will offer the greatest marketing opportunity. Additionally, in the event a product manufacturer has a product that sells in a first segment, but not in a second segment, examples disclosed herein may identify which one or more product characteristics, if added to the product, will enable the product manufacturer to sell the product in the second segment. In other words, examples disclosed herein allow a product manufacturer to develop a new product that can penetrate new segments of interest.
As discussed above, while some correlations occur between certain product characteristics to reveal associated product marketing opportunities, additional marketing opportunity insight may be developed, calculated and/or otherwise revealed in connection with segment attributes related to consumers that purchase those products. For example, relevant characteristics of a candidate yogurt product that exhibit relatively high product affinity scores are low calories, high protein and low carbohydrates. On the other hand, purchasers of the yogurt product of interest exhibit segment characteristics of regular exercise, regular doctor appointments, healthy eating, and nutrition awareness. Accordingly, by identifying a link between product characteristics and corresponding segment attributes having an affinity therebetween, product marketing decisions may be designed in a manner that improves marketing success and/or otherwise allows predictions of which segments are likely to purchase products/services of interest.
All consumers are divided into groups and/or marketing segments based on geographical, demographical, behavioral, lifestyle, etc., attributes. A particular segment (e.g., Seg1) may have any number and type of attribute, such as one or more geographical attributes (G1, G2, . . . , Gn), one or more demographic attributes (D1, D2, . . . , Dn), one or more lifestyle attributes (L1, L2, . . . , Ln) one or more behavioral attributes (B1, B2, . . . , Bn), etc.
In the illustrated example of
In operation, after product characteristics are identified (e.g., pairs of product characteristics, groups of two or more product characteristics, etc.) that satisfy (a) a threshold level of support (e.g., via satisfaction in a manner consistent with example Equation 1) and (b) a threshold level of confidence (e.g., via satisfaction in a manner consistent with example Equation 3), the example attribute retriever 220 identifies segments associated with the purchased products from which the product characteristics were derived. As discussed above, evaluation of the product characteristics was based on products purchased in the example transaction sets 504 of the illustrated example of
The example segment affinity manager 224 generates segment affinity rules based on corresponding segment attributes occurring together in a manner that satisfies a threshold level of support and a threshold level of confidence. In particular, identified segment attributes from identified segments of interest are counted to determine whether they occur a threshold number of times and, if not, such segment attributes are removed from further consideration when searching for segment attribute combinations that may have a degree of affinity therebetween. Remaining attributes are assembled in item sets to form possible permutations/combinations. For example, if segment attributes G1, G2, and L2 are determined to occur a threshold number of times, then possible permutations of these segment attributes are (G1→G2 and L2), (G2→G1 and L2), (L2→G1 and G2), (G1 and G2→L2), (G1 and L2→G2) and (G2 and L2→G1). As described above in connection with product characteristic item sets generated from the transaction sets, a frequent-pattern tree, a frequent-pattern growth algorithm, an apriori algorithm, a CLOSET algorithm, a CHARM algorithm, an Opus algorithm and/or any other item set analysis technique may be applied to generate potential alternate attribute combinations/permutations. The attribute affinity generator 226 then applies resulting combinations/permutations to test for satisfaction of (a) a level of support and (b) a level of confidence.
Those attribute combinations/permutations that satisfy particular threshold levels of support and confidence are deemed to relate to the previously identified product characteristics that also satisfied the threshold level of support and confidence. Stated differently, the attribute combinations are deemed to have an affinity to the product characteristics, thereby indicating a likelihood of success for products having those particular characteristics selling within segments having those particular attributes. Accordingly, the retained attribute combinations/permutations serve as target attribute indictors when identifying one or more segments to be targeted for marketing of the products of interest having the previously identified characteristic product affinities. In other words, such retained attribute combinations/permutations facilitate predicting which segments may be targeted with products/services of interest. In still other examples, once affinities have been identified between particular product characteristics and corresponding segment attributes, thereby resulting in an “affinity set,” examples disclosed herein determine new products having additional and/or otherwise alternate product characteristics that, if added/modified to an existing product, will exhibit success in a segment of interest in which the product manufacturer is not yet participating. As such, examples disclosed herein enable new augmented products to be introduced into a segment of interest with reduced risk of failure, and reduces waste (e.g., financial waste, organizational resource waste, etc.) by retooling a product for introduction into the segment of interest that may result from trial-and-error, management discretionary judgement, and/or focus groups that do not properly reflect the tastes and desires of the target segment of interest.
While an example manner of implementing the affinity manager 106 of
Flowcharts representative of example machine readable instructions for implementing the affinity manager 106 of
The program(s) may be embodied in software stored on a tangible computer readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a digital versatile disk (DVD), a Blu-ray disk, or a memory associated with the processor 1512, but the entire program(s) and/or parts thereof could alternatively be executed by a device other than the processor 1412 and/or embodied in firmware or dedicated hardware. Further, although the example program(s) is described with reference to the flowcharts illustrated in
As mentioned above, the example processes of
Additionally or alternatively, the example processes of
As used herein, when the phrase “at least” is used as the transition term in a preamble of a claim, it is open-ended in the same manner as the term “comprising” is open ended.
The example program 600 of
At block 604, the product affinity generator 204 (
An example program 602 of
At block 706, the product affinity manager 206 increments a count on a map and/or table of product counts for the product associated with the product ID retrieved at block 704. At block 708, the characteristic retriever 202 retrieves characteristic value(s) (e.g., the characteristic values 402 of
At block 714, the product retriever 200 determines if there are more products associated with the transaction ID 214 (e.g., has received another trade item number from the transaction processor 100, has not received an end-of-transaction indicator, etc.). If there are more products in the transaction, program control returns to block 702. If there are no more products associated with transaction ID 214, program control advances to block 716. At block 716, the product affinity manager 206 adds the new transaction set generated at block 712 to the transaction database 112. The example program 602 then ends and control advances to block 604 of
An example program 603 of
At block 806, the characteristic retriever 202 retrieves characteristic value(s) (e.g., the characteristic values 402 of
At block 812, the product retriever 200 determines if there are more trade item numbers in the transaction record received at block 802. If there are more products in the transaction, program control returns to block 804. If there are no more trade item numbers in the transaction record, program control advances to block 814. At block 814, the product affinity manager 206 adds the new transaction set generated at block 810 to the transaction database 112. The example program 603 then ends and control advances to block 604 of
An example program 604 of
At block 904, the product affinity generator 204 removes characteristic values from the transaction sets retrieved at block 902 that do not have counts on the map and/or table of characteristic value counts that are less than a threshold frequency of support defined by the MRE 102 (
As described above, frequent item sets are identified from any number of permutations of product characteristic values (e.g., item sets). Those permutations that occur more than a threshold number of times may be identified as the frequent item sets. Identifying which permutations are to be analyzed for possible advancement or establishment as a frequent item set may be performed in any number of ways. For example, a tree-projection may be employed, an Apriori algorithm may be employed, a frequent pattern growth algorithm (e.g., frequent-pattern tree) may be employed, and/or each available permutation may be assembled and tested for a corresponding frequency count, without limitation. A non-limiting example of the frequent-pattern tree is described below, but examples disclosed herein are not limited thereto.
An example program 906 of
At block 1008, the product affinity generator 204 traverses the conditional frequent-pattern tree generated at block 1006 to create item sets associated with the end node selected at block 1004. At block 1010, the product affinity generator 204 calculates a level of support (e.g., using Equation (1) discussed above) for the item sets created at block 1008 and adds the item sets generated at block 1008 that have a level of support greater than or equal to a threshold level of support as defined by the MRE 102 (
An example program 606 of
An example program 610 of
In the illustrated example of
The example segment affinity manager 224 generates one or more segment affinity rules (block 1208), as described in further detail in connection with
The example attribute affinity generator 226 calculates level(s) of support for item sets to establish and/or otherwise define frequent item sets (block 1308). As described above, an item set is deemed a frequent item set (e.g., a frequent attribute item set) in the event it satisfies threshold criteria in a manner consistent with example Equation 1. Additionally, the example attribute affinity generator 226 determines whether the established frequent attribute sets also satisfy one or more threshold confidence levels in a manner consistent with example Equation 3 (block 1310). For example, the attribute affinity generator identifies a number of instances when a first segment attribute occurs along with a second segment attribute. When such occurrences satisfy a threshold value (e.g., a percentage value), then those two example attributes are deemed to have a strong affinity therebetween. While the example above refers to two example segment attributes, examples disclosed herein are not limited thereto.
Continuing with the example above, the two segment attributes may be identified and/or otherwise designated as a target attribute pair. As such, additional and/or alternate segments of interest may be discovered that also share these two segment attributes, thereby facilitating market strategy options. Those frequent item sets (of segment attributes) that satisfy the one or more threshold confidence levels are identified as candidate segment attributes to be used in marketing efforts for the previously identified products of interest that contain product characteristics with affinity (block 1312).
While examples disclosed above identify which segments will best promote sales of a particular product, thereby allowing the product manufacturer to avoid wasteful marketing campaigns in ineffective segments, additional examples disclosed herein permit new product development to allow the product manufacturer to enter a segment type that they might not currently reside and/or otherwise participate. After affinities have been established and/or otherwise identified between particular product characteristics and corresponding segment attributes, a target segment of interest may be selected. The target segment of interest may reflect a particular population of consumers that the product manufacturer does not currently target because of, for example, relatively poor sales from one or more prior attempts at that target segment.
In operation, the example segment attribute retriever 220 selects a target segment of interest and selects one attribute from that target segment of interest, and the example product affinity manager 206 determines whether the attribute has an affinity with a particular product characteristic. If so, the example product affinity manager 206 determines whether the product characteristic is already included in the existing product to be augmented. If not, then the example affinity manager 106 determines whether it is possible to add the candidate characteristic to the existing product. For example, if the candidate characteristic is associated with a crunchy texture, but the existing product is a smooth peanut butter, then adding this particular candidate characteristic is inconsistent with the existing product. However, for the sake of this example, assume the candidate characteristic is associated with increased fiber. In this example case, the example affinity manager 106 identifies the candidate characteristic as a potential augmentation option for the existing product, thereby generating a new product having a greater likelihood of success for the selected segment of interest.
The example product affinity manager 206 evaluates the existing product to determine whether the product characteristic is already included in that existing product (block 1408). If so, control advances to block 1414 to determine if the candidate attribute has any additional characteristics to consider. However, if the product characteristic is not already included in the existing product (block 1408), then the example affinity manager 106 determines whether the product characteristic is suitable for addition to the existing product (block 1410). In some examples, the product database 108 includes categorical information for each product that may be marketed. For example, The Nielsen Company maintains a Product Reference Library (PRL) that codes more than 700,000 items, in which each item includes an average of forty (40) descriptive characteristics. The characteristics for each item may include, but are not limited to, manufacturer name, product size, brand, flavor, lot number, serial number, package type, and/or nutritional information. Additionally, the PRL also includes the associated UPC for the product. The example affinity manager 106 evaluates whether the product characteristic under consideration is consistent with the existing product being considered for augmentation. For example, in the event the existing product already includes a characteristic of “gluten free,” and the product characteristic under consideration is “enriched flour,” then the example affinity manager 106 identifies the product characteristic under consideration as incompatible with the existing product. However, in the event the product characteristic under consideration is appropriate, the example affinity manager 106 adds the product characteristic as a candidate characteristic that can be added to the existing product, thereby creating a new augmented product that will exhibit improved sales in the target segment of interest (block 1412).
The example product affinity manager 206 determines whether any additional product characteristics are yet to be considered that also have affinity with the attribute under consideration (block 1414). If so, control returns to block 1408, otherwise the example segment attribute retriever 220 determines whether the selected target segment of interest has additional attributes to consider (block 1416). If no further attributes are to be considered, then the example program 612 ends with one or more candidate product characteristics that are suitable to add to the existing product that will improve market success in the selected target segment of interest.
The processor platform 1500 of the illustrated example includes a processor 1512. The processor 1512 of the illustrated example is hardware. For example, the processor 1512 can be implemented by one or more integrated circuits, logic circuits, microprocessors or controllers from any desired family or manufacturer.
The processor 1512 of the illustrated example includes a local memory 1513 (e.g., a cache). The processor 1512 of the illustrated example is in communication with a main memory including a volatile memory 1514 and a non-volatile memory 1516 via a bus 1518. The volatile memory 1514 may be implemented by Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM), Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), RAMBUS Dynamic Random Access Memory (RDRAM) and/or any other type of random access memory device. The non-volatile memory 1516 may be implemented by flash memory and/or any other desired type of memory device. Access to the main memory 1514, 1516 is controlled by a memory controller.
The processor platform 1500 of the illustrated example also includes an interface circuit 1520. The interface circuit 1520 may be implemented by any type of interface standard, such as an Ethernet interface, a universal serial bus (USB), and/or a PCI express interface.
In the illustrated example, one or more input devices 1522 are connected to the interface circuit 1520. The input device(s) 1522 permit(s) a user to enter data and commands into the processor 1512. The input device(s) can be implemented by, for example, an audio sensor, a microphone, a camera (still or video), a keyboard, a button, a mouse, a touchscreen, a track-pad, a trackball, isopoint and/or a voice recognition system.
One or more output devices 1524 are also connected to the interface circuit 1520 of the illustrated example. The output devices 1524 can be implemented, for example, by display devices (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a liquid crystal display, a cathode ray tube display (CRT), a touchscreen, a tactile output device, a light emitting diode (LED), a printer and/or speakers). The interface circuit 1520 of the illustrated example, thus, typically includes a graphics driver card, a graphics driver chip or a graphics driver processor.
The interface circuit 1520 of the illustrated example also includes a communication device such as a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a modem and/or network interface card to facilitate exchange of data with external machines (e.g., computing devices of any kind) via a network 1526 (e.g., an Ethernet connection, a digital subscriber line (DSL), a telephone line, coaxial cable, a cellular telephone system, etc.).
The processor platform 1500 of the illustrated example also includes one or more mass storage devices 1528 for storing software and/or data. Examples of such mass storage devices 1528 include floppy disk drives, hard drive disks, compact disk drives, Blu-ray disk drives, RAID systems, and digital versatile disk (DVD) drives.
The coded instructions 1532 of
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that examples have been disclosed which allow affinity rules for characteristic values to be dynamically generated with up-to-date transaction sets. Examples have been disclosed which allow a market research entity to provide cross promotional planning through characteristic value level affinity rules. Furthermore, by also identifying corresponding segment attributes that have a relatively strong association with each other, one or more additional and/or alternate segments of interest may be identified having a greater likelihood of product marketing success. By considering and/or otherwise identifying potential associations between product characteristics and segment attributes, computational resources may operate in a more efficient manner by reducing a number of matching iterations required to determine which consumer segment(s) are likely to improve sales of a product of interest.
Although certain example methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture have been disclosed herein, the scope of coverage of this patent is not limited thereto. On the contrary, this patent covers all methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture fairly falling within the scope of the claims of this patent.
This patent arises from a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/180,812, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,909,560, entitled “Methods and Apparatus to Identify Affinity Between Segment Attributes and Product Characteristics,” which was filed on Nov. 5, 2018. U.S. application Ser. No. 16/180,812 claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/821,363, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,147,108, entitled “Methods and Apparatus to Identify Affinity Between Segment Attributes and Product Characteristics,” which was filed on Aug. 7, 2015. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/821,363 claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/142,427, entitled “Methods and Apparatus to Identify Affinity Between Segment Attributes and Product Characteristics,” which was filed on Apr. 2, 2015. U.S. application Ser. No. 16/180,812, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/821,363, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/142,147 are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. Priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 16/180,812, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/821,363, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/142,147 is hereby claimed.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4115761 | Ueda et al. | Sep 1978 | A |
4603232 | Kurland et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4908761 | Tai | Mar 1990 | A |
4935877 | Koza | Jun 1990 | A |
5041972 | Frost | Aug 1991 | A |
5090909 | Keller et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5124911 | Sack | Jun 1992 | A |
5124991 | Allen | Jun 1992 | A |
5222192 | Shaefer | Jun 1993 | A |
5255345 | Shacfcr | Oct 1993 | A |
5299115 | Fields et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5321833 | Chang et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5375195 | Johnston | Dec 1994 | A |
5400248 | Chisholm | Mar 1995 | A |
5420786 | Felthauser et al. | May 1995 | A |
5559729 | Abe | Sep 1996 | A |
5583763 | Atcheson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5608424 | Takahashi et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5615341 | Agrawal et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5651098 | Inoue et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5654098 | Aono et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5687369 | Li | Nov 1997 | A |
5704017 | Heckerman et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5717865 | Stratmann | Feb 1998 | A |
5724567 | Rose et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5734890 | Case et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5754938 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5819245 | Peterson et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5884282 | Robinson | Mar 1999 | A |
5893098 | Peters et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5913204 | Kelly | Jun 1999 | A |
5918014 | Robinson | Jun 1999 | A |
5930780 | Hughes et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5974396 | Anderson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5995951 | Ferguson | Nov 1999 | A |
6012051 | Sammon, Jr. et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029139 | Cunningham et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6041311 | Chislenko et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6064980 | Jacobi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064996 | Yamaguchi et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070145 | Pinsley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078740 | DeTreville | Jun 2000 | A |
6078922 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6088510 | Sims | Jul 2000 | A |
6092069 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6093026 | Walker et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6098048 | Dashefsky et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115700 | Ferkinhoff et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6125351 | Kauffman | Sep 2000 | A |
6151585 | Altschuler et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6155839 | Clark et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167445 | Gai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6175833 | West et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185559 | Brin et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6202058 | Rose et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233564 | Schulze, Jr. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236977 | Verba et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6249714 | Hocaoglu et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266649 | Linden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6281651 | Haanpaa et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304861 | Ferguson | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6366890 | Usrey | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6380928 | Todd | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385620 | Kurzius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6438579 | Hoskcn | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6460036 | Herz | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477504 | Hamlin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484158 | Johnson et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6546380 | Lautzenheiser et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6574585 | Caruso et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6629097 | Keith | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6636862 | Lundahl et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6741967 | Wu et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6754635 | Hamlin et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6778807 | Martino et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6826541 | Johnston et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6839680 | Liu et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6859782 | Harshaw | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6873965 | Feldman et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6895388 | Smith | May 2005 | B1 |
6901424 | Winn | May 2005 | B1 |
6915269 | Shapiro et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6934748 | Louviere et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6944514 | Matheson | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6993495 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999987 | Billingsley et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7016882 | Afeyan et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7054828 | Heching et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058590 | Shan | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7082426 | Musgrove | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7113917 | Jacobi | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114163 | Hardin et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117163 | Iyer et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7177851 | Afeyan et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197485 | Fuller | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7233914 | Wijaya et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7249044 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7269570 | Krotki | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7281655 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302475 | Gold et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7308418 | Malek et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7337127 | Smith et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7359913 | Ordonez | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7398223 | Kahlert et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7610249 | Afeyan et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7630986 | Herz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7698163 | Reed et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7711580 | Hudson | May 2010 | B1 |
7720720 | Sharma et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7730002 | Afeyan et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7836057 | Micaelian et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7860776 | Chin et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7877346 | Karty | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7912898 | Gold et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8027864 | Gilbert | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8082519 | Oron et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8103540 | Gross | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8117199 | Ghani et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8150795 | Montgomery, Jr. et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8234152 | Jepson et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8407081 | Rajasenan | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8543446 | Richardson et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8620717 | Micaelian et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8694372 | Eyal et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8868446 | Lamoureux et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8868448 | Freishtat et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
9111298 | Lamoureux et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9208132 | DeBlois et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9208515 | Lamoureux et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9218614 | Lamoureux et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9262776 | Lamoureux et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9311383 | Karty et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
RE46178 | Afeyan et al. | Oct 2016 | E |
9785995 | Malek et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9799041 | Karty et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
10147108 | Ayzenshtat et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10354263 | Wagner | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10621203 | Hunt et al. | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10796321 | Balakrishnan et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10909560 | Ayzenshtat et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
11037179 | Wagner | Jun 2021 | B2 |
20010013009 | Greening et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010032128 | Kepecs | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020002482 | Thomas | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016731 | Kupersmit | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020046128 | Abe et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052774 | Parker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020077881 | Krotki | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087388 | Keil et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107852 | Oblinger | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020128898 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133502 | Rosenthal et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020152110 | Stewart et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161664 | Shaya et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169727 | Melnick et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030004781 | Mallon et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014291 | Kane et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018517 | Dull et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030074369 | Schuetze et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078900 | Dool | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088457 | Keil et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088458 | Afeyan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030140012 | Harvey et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030187708 | Baydar et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030002333 | Yanase et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040123247 | Wachen et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133468 | Varghese | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040181461 | Raiyani et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199923 | Russek | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040204957 | Afeyan et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210471 | Luby et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040236625 | Kearon | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040249719 | Urpani | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267604 | Gross | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004819 | Etzioni et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050060222 | White | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050075919 | Kim | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050131716 | Hanan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050197988 | Bublitz | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203807 | Bezos et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209909 | Dull et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050261953 | Malek et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060004621 | Malek et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060080265 | Hinds et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080268 | Afeyan et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106656 | Ouimet | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112099 | Musgrove et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060136293 | Kasravi | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149616 | Hildick-Smith | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060212355 | Teague et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060247956 | Rosen et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259344 | Patel et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070067212 | Bonabeau | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067213 | Brown | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070094066 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094067 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100680 | Kumar et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070192166 | Van Luchene | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203783 | Beltramo | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070218834 | Yogev et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070222793 | Olhofer et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226073 | Wang | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070241944 | Coldren et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070282666 | Afeyan et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080065471 | Reynolds et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077901 | Arsintescu | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080086364 | Hahn et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091510 | Crandall et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080114564 | Ihara | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140507 | Hamlisch et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147483 | Ji | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162268 | Gilbert | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208659 | An et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080243637 | Chan et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256011 | Rice | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270398 | Landau et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080306895 | Karty | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080319829 | Hunt et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006156 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006184 | Leach et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090018996 | Hunt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090076887 | Spivack et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089273 | Hicks | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090150213 | Cyr et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090222325 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090231356 | Barnes et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234710 | Belgaied Hassine et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090248483 | Kiefer | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254971 | Herz et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090282482 | Huston | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090287728 | Martine et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090307055 | Karty | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100010893 | Rajaraman et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100063869 | Kriss | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082441 | Doemling et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100121777 | McGonigal et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100125541 | Wendel et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100205034 | Zimmerman et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100280877 | Shelton | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100306028 | Wagner | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100306249 | Hill et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100313119 | Baldwin et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100318916 | Wilkins | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110071874 | Schneersohn et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078004 | Swanson, Sr. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110087679 | Rosato et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110125591 | Evans | May 2011 | A1 |
20110261049 | Cardno et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110302494 | Callery | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120072409 | Perry | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120116843 | Karty | May 2012 | A1 |
20120209677 | Mehta et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120209723 | Satow et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120226559 | Baum | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120229500 | Lamoureux et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120232850 | Lamoureux et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120232851 | Lamoureux et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120232852 | Lamoureux et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120233037 | Lamoureux et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120259676 | Wagner | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130060662 | Carlson et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130268346 | Walker et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130282506 | Altschuler | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130325653 | Ouimet | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140172543 | Eyal et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140278799 | McLean | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279203 | Malek et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279233 | Lau | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140344013 | Karty et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150088609 | Wagner | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150134401 | Heuer et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150193853 | Ayzenshtat et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20160239882 | Garcia | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160260153 | Gerard et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160292705 | Ayzenshtat et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20170161757 | Zenor et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20180033071 | Malek et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180068327 | Wagner | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180268427 | Zimmerman et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180365709 | Modani et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20200005338 | Wagner | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20210150552 | Ayzenshtat et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210233096 | Zenor | Jul 2021 | A1 |
20210374772 | Wagner | Dec 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2001331627 | Nov 2001 | JP |
2002015097 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002092291 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002117204 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002215870 | Aug 2002 | JP |
2003030537 | Jan 2003 | JP |
20100082650 | May 2011 | KR |
0002138 | Jan 2000 | WO |
02057986 | Jul 2002 | WO |
2005116896 | Dec 2005 | WO |
2006012122 | Feb 2006 | WO |
2006024108 | Mar 2006 | WO |
2008022341 | Feb 2008 | WO |
2008092149 | Jul 2008 | WO |
2010055017 | May 2010 | WO |
WO-2012030400 | Mar 2012 | WO |
2014143729 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO-2014190231 | Nov 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Kyle “The Effect of Brand Affinity on Investor Stock Choice”, Dec. 2015, Alliance Manchester Business School, pp. 1-190 (Year: 2015). |
Han et al., “Mining Frequent Patterns without Candidate Generation: A Frequent-Pattern Tree Approach,” Data Mining and Discovery, vol. 8, 2004, 35 pages. |
Kotsiantis et al., “Association Rules Mining: A Recent Overview,” GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, vol. 23, No. 1, 2006, 12 pages. |
Nguyen, “Finding Your Best Customer: A Guide to Best Current B2B Customer Segmentation,” Openview Venture Partners, Oct. 3, 2012, 44 pages. Retrieved on Feb. 20, 2015, from http://labs.openviewpartners.com/customer-segmentation. |
Pei et al., “Closet: An Efficient Algorithm for Mining Frequent Closed Itemsets,” Intellectual Database Systems Research Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, 2000, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Requirement for Restriction/Election,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/148,266, dated Feb. 17, 2015, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/148,266, dated Jun. 24, 2015, 20 pages. |
Wasilewska, “Apriori Algorithm Lecture Notes,” 2007, 23 pages. Retrieved on Apr. 2, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/5428474/APRIORI_Algorithm. |
Zheng et al., “Real World Performance of Association Rule Algorithms,” Blue Martini Software, 2001, 14 pages. |
Kamakura, “Sequential Market Basket Analysis,” Springer Science + Business Media, LLC,May 22, 2012, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/821,363, dated Feb. 9, 2018, 22 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/821,363, dated Jul. 31, 2018, 49 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/180,812, dated Sep. 25, 2020, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/180,812, dated Jun. 1, 2020, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/180,812, dated Nov. 29, 2019, 9 pages. |
“Chapter 7: Sampling in Market Research,” retrieved from <http://web.archive.org/web/20050313042847/http://www.fao.org/docrep/w3241c/w3241e08.htm>, retrieved on Apr. 22, 2013 (29 pages). |
“Sampling Techniques.” Oct. 2003, retrieved from <http://web.archive.org/web/20031031223726/http://cs.fit.edu/˜jpmcgee/classes/CSE5800/SamplingTechniques.pdf>, retrieved on Apr. 22, 2013 (12 pages). |
Adomavicius et al., “Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 17. No. 6, Jun. 2005, pp. 734-749 (16 pages). |
Anthony, Cynthia S., “Electronic Monitoring Legislation for Businesses with Call Centers is Fraught with Problems,” Telecommunications, ABI/INFORM Global, vol. 28, No. 3, Mar. 1994 (1 page). |
Arsham, Hossein, “Questionnaire Design and Surveys Sampling,” Mar. 4, 2004, retrieved from <http://web.archive.org/web/20040304232826/http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/statdata/Surveys.htm>, retrieved on Apr. 22, 2013 (15 pages). |
Balakrishnan et al., “Genetic Algorithm for Product Design,” Management Science, vol. 42, No. 8. Aug. 1996, pp. 1105-1117 (13 pages). |
Bartlett II, et al., “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 43-50 (8 pages). |
Brown et al., “Restricted Adaptive Cluster Sampling,” Environmental and Ecological Statistics, vol. 5, 1998, pp. 49-63 (15 pages). |
Cabena et al., “Intelligent Miner for Data Applications Guide,” IBM, Redbook, SG24-5252-00, Mar. 1999 (175 pages). (NPL in 2 parts). |
Callery et al., “Smart Presentation Application,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/351,486, filed Jun. 4, 2010, as incorporated by reference in U.S. PG Publication 2011/0302494 (50 pages). |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report,” issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,428,079, dated Sep. 8, 2014 (2 pages). |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report,” issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,566,943, dated Oct. 17, 2013 (4 pages). |
Cattin et al., “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 46, Summer 1982, pp. 44-53 (8 pages). |
Chen, Doris Tung, “Network Monitoring and Analysis in a Large Scale PACS and Teleradiology Environment,” AAT 9620717, University of California, 1996, Abstract Only, Abstract retrieved from <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=74184...D&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1235762960&clientId=19649>, retrieved on Feb. 27, 2009 (2 pages). |
Dahan et al., “The Predictive Power of Internet-Based Product Concept Testing Using Visual Depiction and Animation,” Journal of Production Innovation Management, vol. 17, 2000, pp. 99-109 (11 pages). |
Desmond et al., “Smart Office Tools Presentation,” IBM Research, Oct. 18, 2010, retrieved from <http://ics.uci.edu/' nlopezgi/flexitools/presentations/desmond_flexitools_splash2010.pdf> (22 pages). |
Desmond et al., “Towards Smart Office Tools,” 2010, retrieved from <http://http://www.ics.uci.edu/˜nlopezgi/flexitools/papcrs/desmond_flexitools_splash2010.pdf> (4 pages). |
DSS Research, “A Review of Conjoint Analysis,” DSS Research, retrieved from <http://www.conjoint.com/CR01.aspx>, retrieved on Feb. 26, 2015 (6 pages). |
Ellis et al., “Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys in Terms of Sample Representativeness: A Meta-Analysis of Demographic Characteristics,” Ohio State University, Apr. 1999 (61 pages). |
Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection,” EPA QA/G-5S, Dec. 2002 (178 pages). (NPL in 2 parts). |
European Patent Office, “Supplemental Search Report,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 05753821.7, dated Dec. 17, 2009 (2 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Proceeding further with the European patent application pursuant to Rule 70(2) EPC,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 05753821.7, dated Jan. 4, 2010 (1 page). |
European Patent Office, “Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 05753821.7, dated Feb. 5, 2013 (5 pages). |
Fienberg, Stephen E.“Notes on Stratified Sampling (for Statistics 36-303: Sampling, Surveys and Society),” Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Mar. 12, 2003 (12 pages). |
Fly, “Swap an Image in PowerPoint 2007 with Ease,” CGI Interactions, Dec. 23, 2010, retrieved from <http://cgiinteractive.com/blog2010/12/swap-change-image-powerpoint-2007-case/feed/> (3 pages). |
Garcia, Fernando D.,“Computer Screen Design Aided by a Genetic Algorithm,” Late Breaking Papers at the 2000 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Whitley, D. ed. 2000, pp. 98-101 (4 pages). |
Government of India Patent Office, “First Examination Report,” issued in connection with Indian Patent Application No. 3684/KOLNP/2006, dated Mar. 14, 2011 (2 pages). |
Graf et al., “Interactive Evolution of Images,” Evolutionary Programming IV—Proc. Fourth Annual Conference—Evolutionary Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1995, pp. 53-65 (13 pages). |
Gu et al., “Sampling and Its Application in Data Mining: A Survey,” National University of Singapore, Singapore, Jun. 1, 2000 (31 pages). |
Gu et al., “Sampling: Knowing Whole From its Part,” Instance Selection and Construction for Data Mining, Chapter 2, May 2, 2001 (32 pages). |
Haupt et al., “Practical Genetic Algorithms,” 1998, pp. 66-70 and 85-88 (10 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2001/51284, dated Sep. 29, 2008 (3 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/021948, dated Jan. 9, 2007 (8 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/021948, dated Nov. 13, 2006 (2 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/021948, dated Nov. 13, 2006 (7 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/17179, dated Jan. 30, 2007 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/17179, dated Jan. 16, 2007 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2005/17179, dated Jan. 16, 2007 (3 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028364, dated Jul. 11, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028364, dated Jul. 11, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028369, dated Jul. 11, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028369, dated Sep. 10, 2013 (6 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028369, dated Jul. 11, 2012 (5 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028373, dated Sep. 10, 2013 (6 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028373, dated Jul. 6, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028373, dated Jul. 6, 2012 (5 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028375, dated Jul. 6, 2012 (5 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028375, dated Sep. 10, 2013 (6 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028375, dated Jul. 6, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028376, dated Sep. 19, 2013 (7 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028376, dated Jul. 9, 2012 (4 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/028376, dated Jul. 9, 2012 (5 pages). |
Istockphoto, “iStockphoto Announces Plug-in That Allows Users of Microsoft PowerPoint and Word to Download iStock Photos and Illustrations Directly into Presentations and Documents,” istockphoto, retrieved from <http://www.istockphoto.com/istockphoto-office-ribbon>, May 17, 2010 (4 pages). |
Jacobs, Richard M., “Educational Research: Sampling a Population,” EDU 8603, 2003 (89 pages). |
Japan Patent Office, “Notice of Reasons for Rejection,” issued in connection with Japanese Patent Application No. P2013-236441, dated Feb. 25, 2015 (4 pages). |
Johnston, “Why We Feel: The Science of Human Emotions,” Perseus Books, Cambridge MA, 1999, pp. 152-155 (4 pages). |
Kaye et al., “Research Methodology: Taming the Cyber Frontier-Techniques for Improving Online Surveys,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 17. No. 3, Fall 1999. pp. 323-337 (16 pages). |
Kim et al., “Application of Interactive Genetic Algorithm to Fashion Design,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 13, 2000, pp. 635-644 (10 pages). |
Kim et al., “Knowledge-Based Encoding in Interactive Genetic Algorithm for a Fashion Design Aid System,” Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Jul. 10-12, 2000, p. 757 (4 pages). |
Lunsford et al., “Research Forum—The Research Forum Sample—Part 1: Sampling,” Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, vol. 7, No. 3, 1995, retrieved from <http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/printArticle.asp?printArticleId=1995_03_105>, retrieved on Feb. 26, 2015 (10 pages). |
Medina, Martin Humberto Felix, “Contributions to the Theory of Adaptive Sampling, Doctorate Thesis in Statistics,” The Pennsylvania State University, Dec. 2000 (259 pages). (NPL in 2 parts). |
O'Reilly et al., “A Preliminary Investigation of Evolution as a Form Design Strategy,” Artificial Life VI, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1998 (5 pages). |
O'Reilly et al., “Evolution as a Design Strategy for Nonlinear Architecture: Generative Modeling of 3D Surfaces,” 1998 (10 pages). |
Ossher et al., “Flexible Modeling Tools for Pre-Requirements Analysis: Conceptual Architecture and Research Challenges,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices—OOPSLA-10, vol. 45, Issue 10, Oct. 2010, pp. 848-864 (17 pages). |
Ossher et al., “Using Tagging to Identify and Organize Concerns During Pre-Requiremcnts Analysis,” Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design, 2009, EA'09, ICSE Workshop, May 18, 2009, pp. 25-30 (6 pages). |
Pazzani, Michael J., “A Framework for Collaborative, Content-Based and Demographic Filtering,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 13, 2000, pp. 393-408 (16 pages). |
Reynolds, Reid T. “How Big is Big Enough?” American Demographics, Abstract Only, vol. 2, No. 4, Apr. 1980, Abstract retrieved from <http://search.proquest.com/printviewfile?accountid=14753>, retrieved on Apr. 22, 2013 (2 pages). |
Rowland, Duncan Andrew, “Computer Graphic Control Over Human Face and Head Appearance, Genetic Optimization of Perceptual Characteristics,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Jan. 5, 1998, retrieved from <http://www.mindlab.msu.edu/documents/Thesis_Rowland/title.htm>, retrieved on May 12, 2000 (101 pages). |
Sage Publishing, “Chapter 5: Sampling,” retrieved from <http://sagepub.com/upm-data/24480_Ch5.pdf> pp. 148-189 (42 pages). |
Sims, Karl. “Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics,” Computer Graphics, vol. 25, No. 4, Jul. 1991. pp. 319-328 (22 pages). |
Steiner et al., “A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data,” Review of Marketing Science Working Papers, vol. 1, No. 4, Working Paper 4, 2002, pp. 1-40 (41 pages). |
Su et al., “An Internet-Based Negotiation Server for E-Commerce,” The VLDB Joural—The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, vol. 10, Issue 1, Aug. 2001. pp. 72-90 (20 pages). |
Swain et al., “Webseer: an Image Search Engine for the World Wide Web,” Technical Report, University of Chicago, 1996 retrieved from <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.44.9234&rep=rep1&type=pdf> (8 pages). |
Thompson, Steven K., “Design and Inference in Adaptive Sampling,” SSC Annual Meeting, Proceedings of the Survey Methods Section, Jun. 1997 (5 pages). |
Thompson Steven K., “Stratified Adaptive Cluster Sampling,” Abstract Only, Biometrika, vol. 78, No. 2. 1991 (1 page). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Advisory Action” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Sep. 29, 2014 (3 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/740,699, dated Jul. 18, 2014 (16 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,877, dated Mar. 8, 2010 (25 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Supplemental Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/852,356, dated Oct. 22, 2007 (3 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Supplemental Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/852,356, dated Sep. 4, 2007 (3 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/758,877, dated Sep. 22, 2010 (6 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/852,356, dated Jul. 19, 2007 (22 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in comrection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/852,356, dated Jan. 3, 2007 (11 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/053,353, dated Feb. 18, 2005 (10 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/053,353, dated Oct. 17, 2005 (9 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/053,353, dated Nov. 8, 2006 (6 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/831,881, dated Jan. 6, 2005 (10 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 10/831,881, dated Aug. 4, 2005 (7 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/229,020, dated Mar. 17, 2009 (36 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 11/726,350, dated Jul. 13, 2009 (10 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/282,321, dated Jul. 2, 2012 (40 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/282,321, dated Feb. 22, 2013 (47 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,121, dated Sep. 20, 2012 (59 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,121, dated May 24, 2013 (69 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Jan. 27, 2015 (34 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Jul. 10, 2012 (39 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Sep. 19, 2013 (50 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Feb. 11, 2013 (46 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/740,699, dated Apr. 2, 2015 (18 pages). |
Weinberger, Martin, “Getting the Quota Sample Right,” Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 13, No. 5, Oct. 1973, pp. 69-72 (5 pages). |
Wempen, Faithe, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 Bible, Wiley Publishing. Inc., May 10, 2010 (819 pages). (NPL in 6 parts). |
Wikipedia, “Sampling (statistics),” Oct. 24, 2005, retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)>, retrieved on Oct. 26, 2005 (5 pages). |
Witbrock et al., “Evolving Genetic Art,” Evolutionary Design by Computers, 1999, pp. 251-259 (9 pages). |
Bonabeau, Eric, “Agent-Based Modeling: Methods and Techniques for Simulating Human Systems,” PNAS, vol. 99, Supp. 3, May 14, 2002 (8 pages). |
Borgatti, Steven P., “Multidimensional Scaling,” retrieved from <http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/mds.htm>, retrieved on Sep. 8, 2010 (8 pages). |
Buja et al., “Interactive Data Visualization with Multidimensional Scaling,” The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Mar. 29, 2004 (32 pages). |
Cheng et al., “Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model,” Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 35, No. 4, May 2007 (19 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Examination Report,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 10001340.8, dated Mar. 31, 2011 (5 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Extended European Search Report,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 10001340.8, dated May 31, 2010 (4 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Notice from the European Patent Office,” Official Journal of the European Patent Office, vol. 30, No. 11, Nov. 1, 2007, pp. 592-593, XPO007905525 ISSN: 0170-9291 (2 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 10001340.8, dated Feb. 10, 2012 (9 pages). |
Fader et al., “Modeling Consumer Choice Among SKU's,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 33, No. 4, Nov. 1996 (12 pages). |
Guadagni et al., “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data,” Marketing Science, vol. 2, Issue 3, 1983 (2 pages). |
Huber et al., “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, Inc., vol. 10, No. 1, Jun. 1983 (15 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/049645, dated Mar. 27, 2012 (5 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/049645, dated Feb. 28, 2011 (2 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/049645, dated Feb. 28, 2011 (4 pages). |
Kahn et al., “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Retailing, vol. 67, No. 3, Fall 1991 (26 pages). |
Koppelmann et al., “ The Paired Combinatorial Logit Model: Properties, Estimation and Application,” Transportation Research Part B, 34, 2000 (15 pages). |
Riedesel, Paul, “A Brief Introduction to Discrete Choice Analysis in Marketing Research,” Action Marketing Research, 1996, retrieved from <http://www.action-research.com/discrete.html>, retrieved on Jan. 16, 2009 (8 pages). |
Sinha et al., “Attribute Drivers: A Factor Analytic Choice Map Approach for Understanding Choices Among SKUs,” Marketing Science, vol. 24, No. 3, Summer 2005 (10 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Jan. 18, 2012, (32 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Jun. 8, 2011 (16 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Apr. 16, 2014 (39 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Aug. 14, 2013 (34 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,806, dated Aug. 16, 2012 (17 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/887,027, dated Apr. 11, 2013 (14 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/081,924, dated Jun. 5, 2014 (19 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/081,924, dated Sep. 12, 2013 (19 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection wvith U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,806, dated May 1, 2014 (22 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Mar. 19, 2013 (33 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Nov. 26, 2013 (37 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,806, dated Dec. 1, 2014 (21 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,806, dated Oct. 7, 2011 (15 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/887,027, dated Jan. 15, 2015 (16 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/887,027, dated Apr. 27, 2012 (9 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/081,924, dated Feb. 28, 2013 (15 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/081,924, dated Jan. 15, 2014 (19 pages). |
Wen et al., “The Generalized Nested Logit Model,” Transportation Research Part B, 35, 2001 (15 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Agent-Based Model,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent-based_model&printiable=yes>, retrieved on Jan. 21, 2009 (7 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Estimation Theory,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimation_theory&printable=yes>, retrieved on Mar. 15, 2011 (8 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Goodness of Fit,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodness_of_fit&printable=yes>, retrieved on Mar. 15, 2011 (4 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independence_of_irrelaevant_alternatives&printable=yes>, retrieved on Feb. 15, 2011 (7 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Multinomial Logit,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multinomial_logit&printable=yes>, retrieved on Feb. 15, 2011 (3 pages). |
Wikipedia, “Revision History of Agent-Based Model,” retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent-based model&dir=prev>, retrieved on Jan. 21, 2009 (1 page). |
European Patent Office, “Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC,” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 13151891.2, dated Jun. 1, 2016 (6 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Apr. 21, 2015 (11 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/476,806, dated Jun. 30, 2015 (21 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/026808, dated Sep. 24, 2015 (7 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Preliminary Report on Patentability,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/027812, dated Sep. 24, 2015 (7 pages). |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report,” issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,428,079, dated Oct. 26, 2015 (3 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/887.027, dated Oct. 8, 2015 (20 pages). |
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, “Examiner's Report,” issued in connection with Canadian Patent Application No. 2,566,943, dated Aug. 12, 2015 (6 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Jun. 8, 2016 (7 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/740,699, dated Dec. 8, 2015 (17 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,495, dated Nov. 23, 2015 (8 pages). |
Geyer-Schulz, “On Learning in a Fuzzy Rule-Based Expert System,” Supplement to Kybernetika, vol. 28, 1992, downloaded from www.kybernetika.cz/contcnt/1992/7/33/paper.pdf. Nov. 24, 2015 (4 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/211,788 dated Apr. 27, 2016 (8 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/208,013 dated Feb. 14, 2017 (66 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/211,788 dated Oct. 4, 2016 (11 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/208,013, dated Jun. 2, 2017, 7 pages. |
Brintrup et al., “Ergonomic Chair Design by Fusing Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria Using Interactive Genetic Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, No. 3, Jun. 2008, 12 pages. |
Hudson et al, “The Application of Genetic Algorithms to Conceptual Design,” A1 System Support for Conceptual Design, Springer London, 1996, 20 pages. |
Quiroz et al., “Towards Creative Design Using Collaborative Interactive Genetic Algorithms,” 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Aug. 26, 2009, 8 pages. |
Yang et al, “Development of a Product Configuration System with an Ontology-Based Approach,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 40, No. 8. Aug. 2008. 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/208,013, dated Sep. 8, 2016. 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/211,788, dated Jun. 21, 2017, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Patent Board Decision”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/559,084, dated Jun. 21, 2017, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Examinar's Answer”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/559,084, dated May 3, 2016, 5 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office action”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/559,084, dated Jul. 17, 2015, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office action”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 14/559,084, dated Mar. 11, 2015, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Decision on Appeal”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/368,028, dated Aug. 11, 2017, 17 pages. |
Terano et al., “Marketing Data Analysis Using Inductive Learning and Genetic Algorithms with Interactive- and Automated-Phases,” Evolutionary Computation, 1995, IEEE International Conference on Perth, vol. , Nov. 29, 1995 (6 pages). |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report and Written Opinion,” issued in connection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/026808, dated Jun. 26, 2014 (8 pages). |
European Patent Office, “Extended Search Report.” issued in connection with European Patent Application No. 13151891.2, dated Sep. 27, 2013 (5 pages). |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/680,939, dated Jun. 22, 2018, 18 pages. |
International Searching Authority, “International Search Report and Written Opinion,” issued in comrection with International Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/027812, dated Jul. 24, 2014, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/728,100, dated Apr. 10, 2020, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/508,013, dated Nov. 18, 2019, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/680,939, dated Feb. 25, 2019, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” mailed in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/728,100, dated Jul. 25, 2019, 21 pages. |
Fry et al., “Testing for Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: Some Empirical Results,” Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 26, Feb. 1998, 24 pages. |
Dow et al., “Multinomial Probit and Multinomial Logit: A Comparison of Choice Models for Voting Research,” Electoral Studies, vol 23, 2003, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/730,336, dated Jul. 30, 2019, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office,“ Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/730,336, dated May 11, 2020, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “ Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/730,336, dated Feb. 26, 2020, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Advisory Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/730,336, dated May 11, 2020, 2 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Notice of Allowance,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 15/728,100, dated Apr. 10, 2020, 7 pages. |
Intellectual Property India, “Hearing Notice,” issued in connection with Indian Patent Application No. 625/KOLN/2012, dated Jul. 7, 2020, 2 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “ Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/508,013, dated Nov. 18, 2019, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/508,013, dated Apr. 8, 2020, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Non-final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 16/508,013, dated Aug. 27, 2020, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “ Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 17/156,220, dated May 20, 2022, 17 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office. “Non-Final Office Action,” issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 17/345,950, dated Jul. 21, 2022, 6 pages. |
Currim, “Predictive Testing of Consumer Choice Models Not Subject to Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. XIX, pp. 208-222. May 1982, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Final Office Action”, issued in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 17/156,220 dated Nov. 30, 2022, 21 pages. |
Sankaran, “Empowering Consumer Research with Data Science,” IEEE Xplore, downloaded on Nov. 23, 2022, 5 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210150552 A1 | May 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62142427 | Apr 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16180812 | Nov 2018 | US |
Child | 17160001 | US | |
Parent | 14821363 | Aug 2015 | US |
Child | 16180812 | US |