Patent Grant
8406456
This application is related to U.S. application Ser. Nos. 12/177,043, 12/209,096, and 12/209,082, which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
The present invention relates to information security and more specifically it relates to systems and methods for detecting and preventing unauthorized disclosure of secure information. Furthermore, the present invention pertains to fingerprinting image data.
With the rapid increase and advances in digital documentation services and document management systems, organizations are increasingly storing important, confidential, and secure information in the form of digital documents. Unauthorized dissemination of this information, either by accident or by wanton means, presents serious security risks to these organizations. Therefore, it is imperative for the organizations to protect such secure information and detect and react to any secure information (or derivatives thereof) from being disclosed beyond the perimeters of the organization.
Additionally, the organizations face the challenge of categorizing and maintaining the large corpus of digital information across potentially thousands of data stores, content management systems, end-user desktops, etc. It is therefore important to the organization to be able to store concise and lightweight versions of fingerprints corresponding to the vast amounts of image data.
Many organizations store sensitive data in the form of digital images. Image data is susceptible to being transformed from its original form to a derivate form. Examples of derivative image data include image file format conversion (e.g., changing a BMP image format to a JPEG image format, etc.), cropping the original image, altering dimensions of the original image, change in scale and/or orientation of the original image, rotation of the image by an angle, etc.
Therefore, it is critical to the organization's security to be able to identify derivative forms of the secure image data and identify any unauthorized disclosure of even such derivative forms. Therefore, any system or method built to accomplish this task of preventing unauthorized disclosure would have to address at least these two conflicting challenges.
One method to detect derivative image data is to sample features across the entire original image, record the values of the sampled features, and perform a nearest neighbor search of the sampled features. The nearest neighbors on the original image are compared against the nearest neighbors of the image being inspected to detect similarities. In one example of this prior art method, a histogram of RGB pixel values is generated for the entire original image, and compared against a histogram of RGB pixel values generated for the entire image to be inspected. If the histograms of the original image and the image being inspected are approximately similar, a similarity is detected. However, this entire image approach is not suitable for partial image matches (e.g., when the image to be inspected is only a portion of the original image), and does not handle several types of transformations in a derivate image. For example, cropping the image to be inspected in half drastically changes its global characteristics, and will therefore escape detection when compared against the original image.
Other methods operate on local regions of the image, improving the ability to detect derivative image data. These methods are predominantly broken into two steps. In the first step, distinct features (hereinafter “feature points”) are identified within the image. The feature points are identified by locating edges or corners within the image. Other algorithmic approaches may also be employed to identify feature points. Examples of such algorithmic approaches include Harris detection, Moravec detection, Shi and Tomasi detection, Harris-Laplace detection, FAST, SIFT, etc.
In the second step, descriptors are computed by examining the regions surrounding the feature points. The descriptors are recorded and searched to correlate derived regions within the image. Examples of the descriptor methods include creating a histogram, employing SIFT, using steerable filters, or using moment invariants.
However, this approach also suffers from several disadvantages. The first disadvantage is that the descriptors are large, and therefore occupy a large space. The cost and efficiency associated with storing and maintaining these large descriptors compound and increase with an increase in the amount of digital information an organization intends to protect. Additionally, comparing feature points involves searching through a highly dimensional space, making this approach computationally slow.
Methods and systems to provide efficient means to monitor and protect an organization's secure image information using image fingerprints is provided. In one embodiment, the present invention provides methods and systems to fingerprint image data. In some instances, the image data is normalized to a canonical format. Feature points are identified in the normalized image data. A plurality of closest neighbors is determined for each feature point.
In one embodiment, an anchor point is identified among the plurality of closest neighbors of each feature point. In some instances, the distance between the feature point and each of its closest neighbors is calculated relative to the distance between the feature point and the anchor point. Similarly, in some instances, the angle between the feature point and its closest neighbors is computed relative to the angle between the feature point and the anchor point. In one embodiment, the angle and distance information is used to generate a point vector. A hash function is then applied over the point vectors to generate a fingerprint for the corresponding feature point.
In one embodiment, methods and systems to maintain an image fingerprint based security mechanism is provided. Here, a fingerprint server maintains image fingerprints corresponding to secure image data that an organization desires to protect. In some instances, client systems (e.g., a user's personal computer) are monitored, and fingerprints are generated for any image data that the user desires to transmit outside of the organization. In some instances, the client fingerprints are compared and matched against the fingerprints in the fingerprint server. If any of the fingerprints from the client systems match any of the fingerprints in the fingerprint server, an appropriate security event is initiated (e.g., blocking the user's access to an image data file, etc.).
In some instances, when generating the fingerprints, the angles and distances are computed relative to the anchor point. The angles and distances are computed using a predetermined direction of rotation about the feature point. This ensures that similar fingerprints are generated for the original image data and derivate versions where the image data is rotated or skewed by an angle. Additionally, since the fingerprints capture the features of their neighborhood (for example, by calculating point vectors of closest feature points), the fingerprints are robust against variations in a derivate image data (e.g., when the original image is cropped). Additionally, a single fingerprint is computed for all point vectors corresponding to a feature point's neighborhood. This allows for efficient and lower cost establishment and maintenance of an organization's secure fingerprint database.
These and other objects, features and characteristics of the present invention will become more apparent to those skilled in the art from a study of the following detailed description in conjunction with the appended claims and drawings, all of which form a part of this specification. In the drawings:
The present invention may be embodied in several forms and manners. The description provided below and the drawings show exemplary embodiments of the invention. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be embodied in other forms and manners not shown below. It is understood that the use of relational terms, if any, such as first, second, top and bottom, and the like are used solely for distinguishing one entity or action from another, without necessarily requiring or implying any such actual relationship or order between such entities or actions.
When a user desires to transmit image data through a client (e.g., 110, 120, etc.), the client computer, in some instances, generates one or more fingerprints for each image data. As depicted in
Detailed information on the various modules of the fingerprinting software and methods for implementing the fingerprinting software are discussed further below.
As illustrated in
The setup illustrated in
Fingerprints for the secure image information are generated, in some instances, using a registered fingerprint generator 145. The registered fingerprint generator, in one embodiment, comprises a host computer to perform the operations of a fingerprinting software to generate secure fingerprints. The host computer contains at least one processor to execute the fingerprinting software. In some instances, the processor is coupled to a host memory that stores the instructions corresponding to the fingerprinting software. Examples of the memory include read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices, etc.
As discussed above, the secure fingerprints generated using the registered fingerprint software are stored, in some instances, in the fingerprint database 140. The fingerprint server 135 utilizes the fingerprint database 140 to compare client fingerprints (e.g., 115, 125, etc.) against the secure fingerprints corresponding to the secure image information of the organization.
In one embodiment, the client fingerprints (e.g., 115, 125, etc.) are transmitted to the fingerprint server 135 utilizing a network 130. The network 130, in some instances, may be a local network specific to the organization, or in other instances, may be the public internet, or in some other instances, may be combination of a local network and the public internet.
As discussed above, the client fingerprints, in some instances, are transmitted to the fingerprint server 135. The fingerprint server 135 compares the client fingerprints against the secure fingerprints contained in the fingerprint database 140. In some embodiments, when it is determined that one or more of the client fingerprints match against one or more of the secure fingerprints contained in the fingerprint database 140, a suitable security action is initiated.
Examples of such security actions include preventing the information from being transmitted out through the associated client, sending out a security alert to a system administrator, revoking the user's access to the particular information, alerting the user of the security violation, etc. The security actions may also include integration with third party software to offer security solutions (e.g., integration with Microsoft Windows® RMS to apply rights management to the information being disclosed). It is understood that these examples of security actions are used for illustrative purposes only, and that other security actions known to people skilled in the art may suitably be employed.
It is noted that, in some embodiments, the fingerprinting of the image data can occur at locations other than the egress point through which the image is transmitted. In one example, the image data may be transmitted across a network to a remote server, where the fingerprinting operations may be done. Matching of the client fingerprints against a repository of secure fingerprints may also be done at the remote server. In another example, the fingerprints may be locally generated at the site of the egress points, and the client fingerprints may be matched against a lightweight secure fingerprint database locally available at the site of the egress point. The reader's attention is directed to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/209,082 titled “Methods and Systems for Protect Agents Using Distributed Lightweight Fingerprints” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/209,096 titled “Methods and Systems to Implement Fingerprint Lookups Across Remote Agents” for detailed information on the implementation of these examples.
Detailed description on the generation of image fingerprints and its application in detecting derivate image data is provided in reference to
As indicated in step 215 of
It is also noted that the techniques described herein are not affected by the specific types or kinds of feature points selected. Therefore, in some instances, edges, corners, specific contrast regions, centers of polygons, etc. appearing in the image data may be employed as feature points. Although there are several approaches available to identify the feature points, it is important that the same approach be employed in both the registration stage (for generation of registered fingerprints for the fingerprint database 140, as explained in
As indicated in step 220, in one embodiment, a P-neighborhood list of feature points is established for each feature point identified/received using step 215. The P-neighborhood is determined, in some instances, by identifying a “P” number of closest feature points to each feature point “C” (hereinafter, “C-Point”). The P-neighborhood is then processed in later stages (as discussed in steps 223-345 below) to generate a fingerprint associated with the C-Point.
The number of feature points in the P-neighborhood of each C-Point influences the accuracy of detection when, for example, the fingerprint server (135 of
In some instances, there may be more than one equally distant closest points to the C-Point, making the overall number of feature points in the P-neighborhood greater than the required “P” value. In such instances, ties can be resolved by, for example, placing a limit on the overall number of equidistant points to consider or record in the P-neighborhood. In other instances, when there are too many equidistant points, the C-Point may be discarded from the feature point list. The justification for discarding such C-Points is that the particular feature point is uninteresting and would not result in a robust fingerprint. This approach of discarding uninteresting C-Points ensures that the overall fingerprint database is efficiently maintained.
There are at least two approaches using which the P-neighborhood may be determined. These two approaches will be discussed in detail with reference to
In step 225, the distance between the C-Point and its associated P-neighborhood feature points are computed and recorded. The distance between two feature points, in some instances, is determined by computing the Euclidean distance between the two feature points. Therefore, if the first feature point is at location (x,y) and the second feature point is at location (x′, y′), the distance between the two points can be calculated using the Euclidean distance formula, given by √{square root over ((x−x′)2+(y−y′)2)}{square root over ((x−x′)2+(y−y′)2)}. However, in some embodiments, the techniques described herein use a modified Euclidean distance formula to determine the distance between two feature points for the purpose of establishing the P-neighborhood of each C-Point.
In the modified Euclidean distance formula, the expensive square-root operation is excluded. Even without the square-root operation, the square of the distance values, as determined by (x−x′)2+(y−y′)2 preserves the comparative distance between the two feature points, and therefore is adequate to identify the P-neighborhood feature points. The distance between each C-Point and its associated P-neighborhood feature points is computed, and therefore a large number of distance computation steps are involved in image fingerprinting. It is therefore beneficial to exclude the expensive square-root operation of the Euclidean distance formula to considerably reduce the overall computation time.
In some instances, the distance between the C-Point and the P-neighborhood feature points is not sufficient to produce a sufficiently unique description of the feature region. It is therefore desirable to incorporate information about the angle between the C-Point and the P-neighborhood feature points, as indicated in step 230. The distance and angle information between the C-Point and each P-neighborhood point is combined, in some instances, to obtain a vector value (a “point vector”), as indicated in step 235.
In some instances, each point vector may be computed using the distance and angle between the actual locations of the feature points in the image data. However, in derivate image formats, even a small change in the angle of the image may result in the generation of completely different angle values between the feature points, thus resulting in different point vectors. It is therefore beneficial to use “relative” angle and distance information for computation of the point vectors, to maintain consistency in point vectors even in derivate formats of the image data. Detailed description of generation of point vectors by computation of angle and distance information relative to an “anchor point” is provided with reference to
As indicated in step 240, a single hash value is generated for each C-Point by taking in to account all point vectors associated with the P-neighborhood feature points. Therefore, regardless of the number of feature-points included in the P-neighborhood, a single hash value is generated, and this hash value is designated as a fingerprint for the C-Point. Additional details on normalization of the relative distance and angle between the C-Point and all P-neighborhood point vectors and final generation of the hash values is described in greater detail with reference to
After completion of fingerprint generation of a first C-Point, in some instances, the process continues to generate fingerprints for all other feature points identified/received for the image data, as indicated in step 245.
In one embodiment, the feature points in the P-neighborhood are determined by computing the distance from the C-Point to every other feature point identified in the image data 320. Based on the resulting distance values, the first P-number of closest feature points are identified to form the P-neighborhood for the C-Point. Because this approach computes the distance from the C-Point to every feature point of the image data, it is computationally expensive, especially because the entire set of computations has to be repeated for every feature point of the image data. For example, if there are n number of feature points in the image data, this approach would require a total of O(n2) computations.
In another embodiment 335, the feature points of an image data are recorded in row and column order. In some instances, the feature points are recorded, for example, in a table based on their location in the original or normalized image. Here, the search for the nearest feature points for a particular feature point ends after identifying the row and/or column of the maximum point state based on the required number of feature points in the P-neighborhood. This approach is preferable over the approach explained in step 320 due to the considerable reduction in the number of required computations. The effective number of computations in this approach, in some instances, is 2O(n). Using this approach also contributes to improving the overall computational efficiency of image fingerprint generation.
However, in some instances, there may be more than one closest feature points to a C-Point 420. In such instances, one of the closest feature points is chosen as the anchor point by using several approaches 425. In one embodiment, the closest feature point that has the smallest angle with the farthest point in the P-neighborhood is designated as the anchor point 428. In another embodiment, as indicated in step 429, the average angle of all feature points in the P-neighborhood is computed, and the anchor point is chosen based on which closest feature point has a smaller angle to the average angle value. It is understood that other approaches known to people skilled in the art may also be implemented to determine one closest point among several closest points here.
Therefore, using one of several approaches, one least minimally distant feature point is designated as the anchor point 430. The angle between the C-Point and the anchor point is calculated (hereinafter the “anchor vector angle”). In some instances, the anchor vector angle is used to determine the relative angle between the C-Point and the remaining feature points of the P-neighborhood, as indicated in step 440. In one embodiment, the anchor vector angle is assigned, for example, a zero value, and relative angle values are determined for all other feature points in relation to the anchor vector angle.
In some instances, the relative angles are computed in a predetermined direction of rotation. In one embodiment, the direction of rotation is fixed (e.g., the angles are always computed in a clockwise direction relative to the location of the anchor point). In another embodiment, the direction of rotation is determined independently for each P-neighborhood. In some instances, the direction of rotation of a particular P-neighborhood is determined based on features local to that particular P-neighborhood. In one example, the direction is chosen by rotating from the anchor point to another feature point with the smallest angle to the anchor point. In another example, the direction is chosen by rotating from the anchor point to a most-distant feature point in the P-neighborhood.
The use of the localized direction of rotation at the registration and matching stages ensures that the fingerprints are robust against certain changes in derivate image data. For example, flipping or mirror transforms in the derivate image data will cause the relative angles to also flip or mirror correspondingly, resulting in a fingerprint matching the same feature in the original image.
In one embodiment, the distances and angles of each point vector is normalized in relation to the anchor point 515. For example, the value of the distance between the C-Point and each feature point of the P-neighborhood is divided by the distance between the C-Point and the anchor point. The angle values are also, in some instances, normalized in a similar fashion.
A hash function is then run over all the point vectors of the P-neighborhood 520. The hash function, in some instances, is applied in a predetermined direction. For example, one of the directions explained in step 440 of
In some instances, the angles and distance values are rounded to their nearest floor or ceil values before applying the hash function. This ensures that similar fingerprints are generated for related features of the image data.
In some instances, the normalized point vector data and direction of rotation (as discussed in step 440 of
The systems corresponding to the methods explained above and associated embodiments relate to apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, each coupled to a computer system.
The algorithms and software presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from other portions of this description. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language, and various embodiments may thus be implemented using a variety of programming languages.
In addition to the above mentioned examples, various other modifications and alterations of the invention may be made without departing from the invention. Accordingly, the above disclosure is not to be considered as limiting and the appended claims are to be interpreted as encompassing the true spirit and the entire scope of the invention.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4479195 | Herr et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4949300 | Christenson et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
| 5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5072412 | Henderson, Jr. et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5245553 | Tanenbaum | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5247615 | Mori et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5293619 | Dean | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5379374 | Ishizaki et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5446842 | Schaeffer et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5608872 | Schwartz et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5617539 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5671428 | Muranaga et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5699427 | Chow et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| RE35861 | Queen | Jul 1998 | E |
| 5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5819300 | Kohno et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 6067551 | Brown et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6088702 | Plantz et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6145084 | Zuili et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6212534 | Lo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6301368 | Bolle et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6449624 | Hammack et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6513050 | Williams et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6614789 | Yazdani et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6658626 | Aiken | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7107518 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7152019 | Tarantola et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7212955 | Kirshenbaum et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7233686 | Hamid | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7240207 | Weare | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7299504 | Tiller et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
| 7356704 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7454778 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7496841 | Hadfield et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7564997 | Hamid | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7624447 | Horowitz et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 7627613 | Dulitz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7673324 | Tirosh et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7680785 | Najork | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7694336 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7857201 | Silverbrook et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7877790 | Vishik et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7890752 | Bardsley et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 8005277 | Tulyakov et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8042112 | Zhu et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
| 8181036 | Nachenberg | May 2012 | B1 |
| 20020019827 | Shiman et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020063154 | Hoyos et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065848 | Walker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020136222 | Robohm | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138744 | Schleicher et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020159239 | Amie et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020164058 | Aggarwal et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030037010 | Schmelzer | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20060005247 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060021031 | Leahy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060050937 | Hamid | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060059196 | Sato et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064717 | Shibata et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060098850 | Hamid | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112120 | Rohall | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060171588 | Chellapilla et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224589 | Rowney et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271947 | Lienhart et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005589 | Gollapudi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070025265 | Porras et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070101154 | Bardsley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070101413 | Vishik et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070253608 | Tulyakov et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294612 | Drucker et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080033913 | Winburn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080080515 | Tombroff et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080219495 | Hulten et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080320316 | Waldspurger et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090034804 | Cho et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064326 | Goldstein | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090129002 | Wu et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017850 | More et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100064372 | More et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100299727 | More et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 10177650 | Jun 1998 | JP |
| 2004265267 | Sep 2004 | JP |
| 2007299364 | Nov 2007 | JP |
| 1020010078840 | Aug 2001 | KR |
| 20040047413 | Jun 2004 | KR |
| 1020060048686 | May 2006 | KR |
| 200070049518 | May 2007 | KR |
| 1020080029602 | Apr 2008 | KR |
| WO-0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Tulyakov et al. “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae.” International Workshop on Patter Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath U.K., Oct. 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
| Xuefeng Liang; Tetsuo Asano; , “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006. ICPR 2006. 18th International Conference on , vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
| Sujoy Roy; Qibin Sun; , “Robust Hash for Detecting and Localizing Image Tampering,” Image Processing, 2007. ICIP 2007. IEEE International Conference on , vol. 6, No., pp. VI-117-VI-120, Sep. 16, 2007-Oct. 19, 2007. |
| Yung et al, Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video Authentication, Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, U.K., Sep. 1998. |
| Mango. et al. Perceptual Image Hashing Via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
| Mango, Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points, http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC5IY2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmizaGFsL2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
| Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued Patent No. 7,496,841. |
| Final Office Action Mailed Aug. 12, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345, Apr. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Dec. 22, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jan. 9, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 11, 2011, in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 16, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued Patent No. 7,496,841. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 19, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
| Restriction Requirement Mailed Feb. 14, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued Patent No. 7,496,841. |
| Restriction Requirement Mailed Feb. 5, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued Patent No. 7,496,841. |
| Restriction Requirement Mailed Jun. 30, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010, pp. 1-9. |
| Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010 pp. 1-4. |
| Weiss et al., Lightweight document matching for help-desk applications, In: Intelligent Systems and their Applications, IEEE, Vo. 15, Issue:2, pp. 57-61, ISSN 1094-7167, 2000. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, pp. 1-6. |
| Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, p. 1-5. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, Dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
| Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, Dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
| Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-4 pages. |
| PC Magazine “Pure Intranets: Real-Time Internet Collaboration”, http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/featuresgroupware/gpwst.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
| Wells et al., “Groupware & Collaboration Support”, www.objs.com/survey/groupwar.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 10 pages. |
| Tsai, et al., “A Document Workspace for Collaboration and Annotation based on XML Technology”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 165-172. |
| Roussev, et al., “Integrating XML and Object-based Programming for Distributed Collaboration”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 254-259. |
| XP-002257904, “Workshare Debuts Synergy”, 2003, 3 pages. |
| Microsoft, “Microsoft XP, Product Guide”, pp. 1-26. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2002/005821, Jan. 30, 2004, 6 pages. |
| International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, Mar. 3, 2010, 3 pages. |
| Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, Mar. 3, 2010, 4 pages. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
| Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 20, 2006 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
| Notice of Allowance Mailed Oct. 24, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 7, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
| Non-Final Office Action Mailed Aug. 1, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20100124354 A1 | May 2010 | US |
