The present invention generally relates to the field of digital document review. More particularly, the present invention relates to methods and systems for monitoring documents exchanged over email applications.
Document collaboration is a way by which multiple document editors can make edits to a central copy of a document. The edits made by each contributing author is collectively captured. In some instances, a primary editor may then accept or reject edits or content contributed by the other authors. There is a variety of document collaboration software in the market that enables the functionality described above. However, as indicated, such document collaboration software is geared toward multiple authors working together. Often, a primary author has to be designated and contributing authors have to be identified.
The headings provided herein are for convenience only and do not necessarily affect the scope or meaning of the claimed invention. In the drawings, the same reference numbers and any acronyms identify elements or acts with the same or similar structure or functionality for ease of understanding and convenience. To easily identify the discussion of any particular element or act, the most significant digit or digits in a reference number refer to the Figure number in which that element is first introduced (e.g., element 101 is first introduced and discussed with respect to
In a more day-to-day occurrence, users create documents (e.g., Word® documents, PowerPoint® slide decks, etc.) that they distribute to one or more users for review. Often times, a recipient of the document may have contributions to the documents in the form of one or more edits. The receiving user may then return an edited form of the document back to the original user. Unless the original user installs document collaboration software, hassles with designating authors, and sends documents through the document collaboration software, the user will not be able to track changes made to the document. Such a process would be time consuming, expensive, and would also require the user to go completely out of his normal routine to get the process established. For an average user who sends out dozens of documents a day and returns quite a few back with edits, the document collaboration software is just not an option. In the normal scenario, when a user receives an edited version of a document from another user (that the user originally sent to the other user), the user may or may not know whether the document was actually edited by the other user. Also, even if the document was edited, the user may have no way of realizing what the changes were, and so would not be able to accept or ignore (or at the very least, acknowledge) the changes.
Overall, the examples herein of some prior or related systems and their associated limitations are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Other limitations of existing or prior systems will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon reading the following Detailed Description.
At least one embodiment of this invention pertains to a compare service for monitoring and detecting changes in files attached to an incoming email. In one embodiment, the change service monitors emails that a user intends to transmit using an email application. If files are attached to an outgoing email, the change service uniquely tags each of the attached files and optionally stores local or remote copies of the tagged files. Additionally, in embodiments, the change service monitors and intercepts incoming emails directed to the user. If files are attached to an incoming email, the change service identifies whether the files are tagged in a manner unique to the compare service. The change service then matches any such uniquely tagged files in the incoming email to corresponding files previously tagged by the change service. In embodiments, the change service compares the two documents and generates reports that identify changes in the received document in relation to the transmitted document.
Further, in embodiments, the change service provides visual indicators of the changes within the email application. For example, the change service may include a change indicator field within the email application (in addition to, for example, the conventional fields such as subject indicator, sender indicator, received time indicator, etc.) indicating that the received document includes at least one change. In another example, the change service may include a visual description of the amount of changes (e.g., in the form of a percentage difference in contents of the files) in the received file in relation to the transmitted file.
Other advantages and features will become apparent from the following description and claims. It should be understood that the description and specific examples are intended for purposes of illustration only and not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure.
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 headings provided herein are for convenience only and do not necessarily affect the scope or meaning of the claimed invention.
In the drawings, the same reference numbers and any acronyms identify elements or acts with the same or similar structure or functionality for ease of understanding and convenience. To easily identify the discussion of any particular element or act, the most significant digit or digits in a reference number refer to the Figure number in which that element is first introduced (e.g., element 204 is first introduced and discussed with respect to
Various examples of the invention will now be described. The following description provides specific details for a thorough understanding and enabling description of these examples. One skilled in the relevant art will understand, however, that the invention may be practiced without many of these details. Likewise, one skilled in the relevant art will also understand that the invention can include many other features not described in detail herein. Additionally, some well-known structures or functions may not be shown or described in detail below, so as to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the relevant description. The terminology used below is to be interpreted in its broadest reasonable manner, even though it is being used in conjunction with a detailed description of certain specific examples of the invention. Indeed, certain terms may even be emphasized below; however, any terminology intended to be interpreted in any restricted manner will be overtly and specifically defined as such in this Detailed Description section.
Various examples of the invention will now be described. The following description provides specific details for a thorough understanding and enabling description of these examples. One skilled in the relevant art will understand, however, that the invention may be practiced without many of these details. Likewise, one skilled in the relevant art will also understand that the invention can include many other obvious features not described in detail herein. Additionally, some well-known structures or functions may not be shown or described in detail below, so as to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the relevant description.
The terminology used below is to be interpreted in its broadest reasonable manner, even though it is being used in conjunction with a detailed description of certain specific examples of the invention. Indeed, certain terms may even be emphasized below; however, any terminology intended to be interpreted in any restricted manner will be overtly and specifically defined as such in this Detailed Description section.
While aspects of the invention, such as certain functions, are described as being performed exclusively on a single device, the invention can also be practiced in distributed environments where functions or modules are shared among disparate processing devices. The disparate processing devices are linked through a communications network, such as a Local Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), or the Internet. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
Aspects of the invention may be stored or distributed on tangible computer-readable media, including magnetically or optically readable computer discs, hard-wired or preprogrammed chips (e.g., EEPROM semiconductor chips), nanotechnology memory, biological memory, or other data storage media. Alternatively, computer implemented instructions, data structures, screen displays, and other data related to the invention may be distributed over the Internet or over other networks (including wireless networks), on a propagated signal on a propagation medium (e.g., an electromagnetic wave(s), a sound wave, etc.) over a period of time. In some implementations, the data may be provided on any analog or digital network (packet switched, circuit switched, or other scheme).
As shown in
In some instances, the network 110 is the Internet, allowing the personal computing device to access functionalities offered through, for example, the compare server 120 or various web servers. In some instances, the network is a local network maintained by a private entity or a wide area public network, or a combination of any of the above types of networks. In some instances, especially where the mobile computing device 104 is used to access web content through the network 110 (e.g., when a 3G or an LTE service of the phone 102 is used to connect to the network 110), the network 110 may be any type of cellular, IP-based or converged telecommunications network, including but not limited to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDM), General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Enhanced Data GSM Environment (EDGE), Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UNITS), Evolution-Data Optimized (EVDO), Long Term Evolution (LTE), Ultra Mobile Broadband (UMB), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA), etc.
As shown in
In some instances, the compare service 136 is configured by logic to run remotely on a compare server 120. In one example, the compare service is run akin to a web or internet service in conjunction with a web server 122. As explained above, a user may use a personal computing device to connect to the compare server 114 using the network (e.g., a local office network, the Internet, etc.). In such an embodiment, the compare server 114 may connect to an email server associated with the personal computing devices 102, 104 to monitor incoming or outgoing email applications, and to perform other functions (such as, e.g., tagging functions, document compare functions, reporting functions, etc.) remotely on the compare server 114. In one example, the compare service may operate both locally at the site of the personal computing device and remotely in conjunction with, for example, an email server. In embodiments, the web server 116 may function as the email server associated with email applications included in the personal computing devices. In such examples, the remote service may directly communicate with the email server to intercept and monitor incoming or outgoing emails from a user and perform corresponding tagging, comparing, and reporting functionalities. The local service may in turn operate in conjunction with the remote service to receive updates regarding changes in specific file attachments and perform operations to report the changes to the user.
Other examples of installing the compare service 136 either locally at the site of the personal computing device or as a remote functionality, as may be contemplated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, may be substituted for the functionalities described herein.
In embodiments, the compare service 136 maybe customized by use of a “compare service” control panel within an email application used by a user on the personal computing device 102, 104. Such an email application may include a POPS or other push type email applications (such as, for example, Microsoft Outlook®, etc.) or may be web based email applications (such as, for example, Yahoo® email, etc.). In either case, the user may be presented with a set of control options to enable or disable features relating to the compare service. In one example, the user may be able to selectively enable or disable the compare service 136 functionalities. In one example, the user may be able to enable the compare service, but only for certain types of documents (e.g., only for word based documents, but not for image files or other document types, etc.). In one example, the user may be able to enable the compare service, but customize the type of reporting indicators (e.g., report only that a change is present in a document returned to the user, or report that a change is present and also report a percentage change in the received document in relation to the sent document, etc.). In one example, the user may be able to customize the type of reporting displays (e.g., receive the returned document and, in addition, receive a redline document identifying changes in received document in redline format; receive the returned document, and in addition, receive the redline version as embedded text within the email, etc.). Additional functionalities, as may be contemplated by a user of ordinary skill in the may also be utilized herein. The following sections describe the various functionalities of the compare service 136 in greater detail.
The functional modules include a receiving module 1302. In embodiments, the receiving module 1302 is configured by logic to operate, for example, in tandem with an email server or directly with the email application to monitor incoming and outgoing emails.
In the case of an outgoing email (i.e., an email a user intends to transmit to another user using the email application), the reporting module 1302 first determines whether the email includes one or more attachments. If the receiving module 1302 detects such attachments, the receiving module uniquely tags each of the attachments. Tagging is performed by means of the tagging module 1304 of the compare service 136. In some instances, the reporting module stores (either locally or remotely in the compare server 114) metadata information relating to the document and the document tagging for use in further operations. In some instances, the reporting module 1302 may further establish an additional copy of the files (i.e., the attachments) and store it in conjunction with the tagging metadata information for use in subsequent comparison operations. By maintaining this additional local copy, the compare service 136 is able to compare a received (changed) version of the document with the original document the user sent out, even if the user makes interim changes to the user's copy of the documents. Additionally, in embodiments, maintaining these additional copies in the remote compare server 114 enables remote operation of the compare service 136.
In the case of an incoming email (i.e., an email intended for the user that is transmitted by another person), the reporting module 1302 intercepts the email and performs one or more checks. For example, the reporting module first verifies whether the incoming email includes one or more attachments. If the reporting module identifies such attachments, the reporting module 1302 then determines whether the files (i.e., the attachments) are tagged in a manner consistent with the tagging performed by the tagging module 1304. If such tagging is identified, the reporting module 1302 then submits the received files (i.e., the attachments) to the matching module 1306.
The matching module 1306 compares the tagging information (or other such metadata) associated with the received files with the tagging information of the files the compare service 136 previously tagged (and in some instances, the files for which the compare service 136 made additional copies for subsequent comparison operations). If the matching module 1306 identifies such matching files, the matching module submits the received files and their “matched” counterparts to the compare module 1308 for comparison operations. The compare module 1308 compares the files to identify changes to the files.
The compare module 1308 may utilize any comparison mechanism, as may be contemplated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, for comparing the received files. As previously indicated, the files may be of any format-type that can be perused and compared by the compare service 136. For example, the files may be textual documents created using word-processing software (e.g., MS Word® documents, Acrobat® documents, etc.), slide decks or presentation files, image files, audio files, video files, etc. In embodiments, the compare module 1308 may compare one or more of the textual information, the multimedia information, the formatting information, the image information, etc. of the two files that are compared.
Additionally, the compare module 1308 may also generate comparison reports for use by the reporting module. In one example, the compare module 1308 may generate a new redline document corresponding to the file contained in the incoming email. The redline document would provide a direct comparison, in redline format, of the file in the incoming email and a corresponding (counterpart) file that was previously transmitted by the user. In one example, the compare module may compute a percentage of difference between the received file and the transmitted file. In one example, the compare module 1308 generates a detailed analysis of the type of changes, in terms of the type of changes. In an illustrate example, detailed report may include the following details: “20% textual changes, 60% image changes, 20% formatting changes.”
The reporting module 1310 performs various reporting functionalities of the compare service 136. In embodiments, the reporting module interacts with the email application to provide a visual indicator (in relation to the received email) to indicate that an attachment includes changes (as identified by, for example, the compare module 1308). In embodiments, the reporting module 1310 may display information generated by the compare module 1308 (such as, e.g., difference values indicating percentage difference between received and transmitted files) in one or more formats based on prior control settings established by the user. Exemplary illustrations of such displays are discussed below with reference to
The processor(s) 1705 may include central processing units (CPUs) to control the overall operation of, for example, the host computer. In certain embodiments, the processor(s) 1705 accomplish this by executing software or firmware stored in memory 1710. The process(s) 1705 may be, or may include, one or more programmable general-purpose or special-purpose microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), programmable controllers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), or the like, or a combination of such devices.
The memory 1710 is or includes the main memory of the computer system 170. The memory 180 represents any form of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory (as discussed above), or the like, or a combination of such devices. In use, the memory 180 may contain, among other things, a set of machine instructions which, when executed by processor 1705, causes the processor 1705 to perform operations to implement embodiments of the present invention.
Also connected to the processor(s) 1705 through the interconnect 1725 is a network adapter 1715. The network adapter 1715 provides the computer system 170 with the ability to communicate with remote devices, such as the storage clients, and/or other storage servers, and may be, for example, an Ethernet adapter or Fiber Channel adapter.
In the illustration of
Email indicator 254 also has at least one file attached to it (as indicated by the attachment indicator field 210). However, in this illustration, the file attached to email 254 is either a new file or does not include any changes in relation to files previously transmitted by the user. Accordingly, the compare indicator field 212 is empty (or otherwise disabled) in email indicator 254. Similarly, as illustrated in
Additionally, in embodiments, the received emails may include redline (i.e., readily perceivable change) information. In one example, as illustrated in the preview pane (located below the incoming email listing), an email that has a “change indicator field” 212 turned on includes the original file attachment 262 (as sent by a sender), and a corresponding redline document (e.g., file1_redline 264). As previously described, this redline document would represent changes to the received file 262 in redline format. In another example, as illustrated in
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, throughout the description and the claims, the words “comprise,” “comprising,” and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense to say, in the sense of “including, but not limited to”), as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense. As used herein, the terms “connected,” “coupled,” or any variant thereof means any connection or coupling, either direct or indirect, between two or more elements. Such a coupling or connection between the elements can be physical, logical, or a combination thereof. Additionally, the words “herein,” “above,” “below,” and words of similar import, when used in this application, refer to this application as a whole and not to any particular portions of this application. Where the context permits, words in the above Detailed Description using the singular or plural number may also include the plural or singular number respectively. The word “or,” in reference to a list of two or more items, covers all of the following interpretations of the word: any of the items in the list, all of the items in the list, and any combination of the items in the list.
The above Detailed Description of examples of the invention is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed above. While specific examples for the invention are described above for illustrative purposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scope of the invention, as those skilled in the relevant art will recognize. While processes or blocks are presented in a given order in this application, alternative implementations may perform routines having steps performed in a different order, or employ systems having blocks in a different order. Some processes or blocks may be deleted, moved, added, subdivided, combined, and/or modified to provide alternative or sub-combinations. Also, while processes or blocks are at times shown as being performed in series, these processes or blocks may instead be performed or implemented in parallel, or may be performed at different times. Further any specific numbers noted herein are only examples. It is understood that alternative implementations may employ differing values or ranges.
The various illustrations and teachings provided herein can also be applied to systems other than the system described above. The elements and acts of the various examples described above can be combined to provide further implementations of the invention. Any patents and applications and other references noted above, including any that may be listed in accompanying filing papers, are incorporated herein by reference. Aspects of the invention can be modified, if necessary, to employ the systems, functions, and concepts included in such references to provide further implementations of the invention.
These and other changes can be made to the invention in light of the above Detailed Description. While the above description describes certain examples of the invention, and describes the best mode contemplated, no matter how detailed the above appears in text, the invention can be practiced in many ways. Details of the system may vary considerably in its specific implementation, while still being encompassed by the invention disclosed herein. As noted above, particular terminology used when describing certain features or aspects of the invention should not be taken to imply that the terminology is being redefined herein to be restricted to any specific characteristics, features, or aspects of the invention with which that terminology is associated. In general, the terms used in the following claims should not be construed to limit the invention to the specific examples disclosed in the specification, unless the above Detailed Description section explicitly defines such terms. Accordingly, the actual scope of the invention encompasses not only the disclosed examples, but also all equivalent ways of practicing or implementing the invention under the claims.
While certain aspects of the invention are presented below in certain claim forms, the applicant contemplates the various aspects of the invention in any number of claim forms. For example, while only one aspect of the invention is recited as a means-plus-function claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, other aspects may likewise be embodied as a means-plus-function claim, or in other forms, such as being embodied in a computer-readable medium. (Any claims intended to be treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 will begin with the words “means for.”) Accordingly, the applicant reserves the right to add additional claims after filing the application to pursue such additional claim forms for other aspects of the invention.
Operating Environment:
The system is typically comprised of a central server that is connected by a data network to a user's computer. The central server may be comprised of one or more computers connected to one or more mass storage devices. The precise architecture of the central server does not limit the claimed invention. Further, the user's computer may be a laptop or desktop type of personal computer. It can also be a cell phone, smart phone or other handheld device, including a tablet. The precise form factor of the user's computer does not limit the claimed invention. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the invention include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held computers, laptop or mobile computer or communications devices such as cell phones, smart phones, and PDA's, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like. Indeed, the terms “computer,” “server,” and the like may be used interchangeably herein, and may refer to any of the above devices and systems.
The user environment may be housed in the central server or operatively connected to it. In one embodiment, the user's computer is omitted, and instead an equivalent computing functionality is provided that works on a server. In this case, a user would log into the server from another computer and access the system through a user environment, and thereby access the functionality that would in other embodiments, operate on the user's computer. Further, the user may receive from and transmit data to the central server by means of the Internet, whereby the user accesses an account using an Internet web-browser and browser displays an interactive web page operatively connected to the central server. The server transmits and receives data in response to data and commands transmitted from the browser in response to the customer's actuation of the browser user interface. Some steps of the invention may be performed on the user's computer and interim results transmitted to a server. These interim results may be processed at the server and final results passed back to the user.
The Internet is a computer network that permits customers operating a personal computer to interact with computer servers located remotely and to view content that is delivered from the servers to the personal computer as data files over the network. In one kind of protocol, the se present webpages that are rendered on the customer's personal computer using a local program known as a browser. The browser receives one or more data files from the server that are displayed on the customer's personal computer screen. The browser seeks those data files from a specific address, which is represented by an alphanumeric string called a Universal Resource Locator (URL). However, the webpage may contain components that are downloaded from a variety of URL's or IP addresses. A website is a collection of related URL's, typically all sharing the same root address or under the control of some entity. In one embodiment different regions of the simulated space displayed by the browser have different URL's. That is, the webpage encoding the simulated space can be a unitary data structure, but different URL's reference different locations in the data structure. The user computer can operate a program that receives from a remote server a data file that is passed to a program that interprets the data in the data file and commands the display device to present particular text, images, video, audio and other objects. In some embodiments, the remote server delivers a data file that is comprised of computer code that the browser program interprets, for example, scripts. The program can detect the relative location of the cursor when the mouse button is actuated, and interpret a command to be executed based on location on the indicated relative location on the display when the button was pressed. The data file may be an HTML document, the program a web-browser program and the command a hyper-link that causes the browser to request a new HTML document from another remote data network address location. The HTML can also have references that result in other code modules being called up and cured, for example, Flash or other native code.
The invention may also be entirely executed on one or more servers. A server may be a computer comprised of a central processing unit with a mass storage device and a network connection. In addition a server can include multiple of such computers connected together with a data network or other data transfer connection, or, multiple computers on a network with network accessed storage, in a manner that provides such functionality as a group. Practitioners of ordinary skill will recognize that functions that are accomplished on one server may be partitioned and accomplished on multiple servers that are operatively connected by a computer network by means of appropriate inter process communication. In addition, the access of the website can be by means of an Internet browser accessing a secure or public page or by means of a client program running on a local computer that is connected over a computer network to the server. A data message and data upload or download can be delivered over the Internet using typical protocols, including TCP/IP, HTTP, TCP, UDP, SMTP, RPC, FTP or other kinds of data communication protocols that permit processes running on two respective remote computers to exchange information by means of digital network communication. As a result a data message can be one or more data packets transmitted from or received by a computer containing a destination network address, a destination process or application identifier, and data values that can be parsed at the destination computer located at the destination network address by the destination application in order that the relevant data values are extracted and used by the destination application. The precise architecture of the central server does not limit the claimed invention, in addition, the data network may operate with several levels, such that the user's computer is connected through a fire wall to one server, which routes communications to another server that executes the disclosed methods.
The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices. Practitioners of ordinary skill will recognize that the invention may be executed on one or more computer processors that are linked using a data network, including, for example, the Internet. In another embodiment, different steps of the process can be executed by one or more computers and storage devices geographically separated by connected by a data network in a manner so that they operate together to execute the process steps. In one embodiment, a user's computer can run an application that causes the user's computer to transmit a stream of one or more data packets across a data network to a second computer, referred to here as a server. The server, in turn, may be connected to one or more mass data storage devices where the database is stored. The server can execute a program that receives the transmitted packet and interpret the transmitted data packets in order to extract database query information. The server can then execute the remaining steps of the invention by means of accessing the mass storage devices to derive the desired result of the query. Alternatively, the server can transmit the query information to another computer that is connected to the mass storage devices, and that computer can execute the invention to derive the desired result. The result can then be transmitted back to the user's computer by means of another stream of one or more data packets appropriately addressed to the user's computer. In one embodiment, a relational database may be housed in one or more operatively connected servers operatively connected to computer memory, for example, disk drives. In yet another embodiment, the initialization of the relational database may be prepared on the set of servers and the interaction with the user's computer occur at a different place in the overall process.
The method described herein can be executed on a computer system, generally comprised of a central processing unit (CPU) that is operatively connected to a memory device, data input and output circuitry (IO) and computer data network communication circuitry. Computer code executed by the CPU can take data received by the data communication circuitry and store it in the memory device. In addition, the CPU can take data from the I/O circuitry and store it in the memory device. Further, the CPU can take data from a memory device and output it through the IO circuitry or the data communication circuitry. The data stored in memory may be further recalled from the memory device, further processed or modified by the CPU in the manner described herein and restored in the same memory device or a different memory device operatively connected to the CPU including by means of the data network circuitry. The memory device can be any kind of data storage circuit or magnetic storage or optical device, including a hard disk, optical disk or solid state memory. The IO devices can include a display screen, loudspeakers, microphone and a movable mouse that indicate to the computer the relative location of a cursor position on the display and one or more buttons that can be actuated to indicate a command.
The computer can display on the display screen operatively connected to the I/O circuitry the appearance of a user interface. Various shapes, text and other graphical forms are displayed on the screen as a result of the computer generating data that causes the pixels comprising the display screen to take on various colors and shades or bightness. The user interface may also display a graphical object referred to in the art as a cursor. The object's location on the display indicates to the user a selection of another object on the screen. The cursor may be moved by the user by means of another device connected by I/O circuitry to the computer. This device detects certain physical motions of the user, for example, the position of the hand on a flat surface or the position of a finger on a flat surface. Such devices may be referred to in the art as a mouse or a track pad. In some embodiments, the display screen itself can act as a trackpad by sensing the presence and position of one or more fingers on the surface of the display screen. When the cursor is located over a graphical object that appears to be a button or switch, the user can actuate the button or switch by engaging a physical switch on the mouse or trackpad or computer device or tapping the trackpad or touch sensitive display. When the computer detects that the physical switch has been engaged (or that the tapping of the track pad or touch sensitive screen has occurred), it takes the apparent location of the cursor (or in the case of a touch sensitive screen, the detected position of the finger) on the screen and executes the process associated with that location. As an example, not intended to limit the breadth of the disclosed invention, a graphical object that appears to be a two dimensional box with the word “enter” within it may be displayed on the screen. If the computer detects that the switch has been engaged while the cursor location (or finger location for a touch sensitive screen) was within the boundaries of a graphical object, for example, the displayed box, the computer will execute the process associated with the “enter” command. In this way, graphical objects on the screen create a user interface that permits the user to control the processes operating on the computer.
In some instances, especially where the user computer is a mobile computing device used to access data through the network the network may be any type of cellular, IP-based or converged telecommunications network, including but not limited to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDM), General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Enhanced Data GSM Environment (EDGE), Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UNITS), Evolution-Data Optimized (EVDO), Long Term Evolution (LTE), Ultra Mobile Broadband (UMB), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA), any form of 802.11.xx or Bluetooth.
Computer program logic implementing all or part of the functionality previously described herein may be embodied in various forms, including, but in no way limited to, a source code form, a computer executable form, and various intermediate forms (e.g., forms generated by an assembler, compiler, linker, or locator.) Source code may include a series of computer program instructions implemented in any of various programming languages (e.g., an object code, an assembly language, or a high-level language such as C, C++, C #, Action Script, PHP, EcmaScript, JavaScript, JAVA, or HTML) for use with various operating systems or operating environments. The source code may define and use various data structures and communication messages. The source code may be in a computer executable form (e.g., via an interpreter), or the source code may be converted (e.g., via a translator, assembler, or compiler) into a computer executable form.
Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types and when running, may generate in computer memory or store on disk, various data structures. A data structure may be represented in the disclosure as a manner of organizing data, but is implemented by storing data values in computer memory in an organized way. Data structures may be comprised of nodes, each of which may be comprised of one or more computer memory locations into which is stored one or more corresponding data values that are related to an item being represented by the node in the data structure. The collection of nodes may be organized in various ways, including by having one node in the data structure being comprised of a memory location wherein is stored the memory address value or other reference, or pointer, to another node in the same data structure. By means of the pointers, the relationship by and among the nodes in the data structure may be organized in a variety of topologies or forms, including, without limitation, lists, linked lists, trees and more generally, graphs. The relationship between nodes may be denoted in the specification by a line or arrow from a designated item or node to another designated item or node. A data structure may be stored on a mass storage device in the form of data records comprising a database, or as a flat, parsable file. In other embodiment, the data structure is one or more relational tables stored on the mass storage device and organized as a relational database.
The computer program and data may be fixed in any form (e.g., source code form, computer executable form, or an intermediate form) either permanently or transitorily in a tangible storage medium, such as a semiconductor memory device (e.g., a RAM, ROM, PROM, EEPROM, or Flash-Programmable RAM), a magnetic memory device a diskette or fixed hard disk), an optical memory device (e.g., a CD-ROM or DVD), a PC card (e.g., PC CIA card, SD Card), or other memory device, for example a USB key. The computer program and data may be fixed in any form in a signal that is transmittable to a computer using any of various communication technologies, including, but in no way limited to, analog technologies, digital technologies, optical technologies, wireless technologies, networking technologies, and internetworking technologies. The computer program and data may be distributed in any form as a removable storage medium with accompanying printed or electronic documentation (e.g., a disk in the form of shrink wrapped software product or a magnetic tape), preloaded with a computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or distributed from a server, website or electronic bulletin board or other the communication system (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web.) It is appreciated that any of the software components of the present invention may, desired, be implemented in ROM (read-only memory) form. The software components may, generally, be implemented in hardware, if desired, using conventional techniques.
It should be noted that flow diagrams are used herein to demonstrate various aspects of the invention, and should not be construed to limit the present invention to any particular logic flow or logic implementation. The described logic may be partitioned into different logic blocks (e.g., programs, modules, functions, or subroutines) without changing the overall results or otherwise departing from the true scope of the invention. Oftentimes, logic elements may be added, modified, omitted, performed in a different order, or implemented using different logic constructs (e.g., logic gates, looping primitives, conditional logic, and other logic constructs) without changing the overall results or otherwise departing from the true scope of the invention. Where the disclosure refers to matching or comparisons of numbers, values, or their calculation, these may be implemented by program logic by storing the data values in computer memory and the program logic fetching the stored data values in order to process them in the CPU in accordance with the specified logical process so as to execute the matching, comparison or calculation and storing the result back into computer memory or otherwise branching into another part of the program logic in dependence on such logical process result. The locations of the stored data or values may be organized in the form of a data structure.
The described embodiments of the invention are intended to be exemplary and numerous variations and modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art. All such variations and modifications are intended to be within the scope of the present invention as defined in the appended claims. Although the present invention has been described and illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood that the same is by way of illustration and example only, and is not to be taken by way of limitation. It is appreciated that various features of the invention which are, for clarity, described in the context of separate embodiments may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features of the invention which are, for brevity, described in the context of a single embodiment may also be provided separately or in any suitable combination. It is appreciated that the particular embodiment described in the Appendices is intended only to provide an extremely detailed disclosure of the present invention and is not intended to be limiting.
The foregoing description discloses only exemplary embodiments of the invention. Modifications of the above disclosed apparatus and methods which fall within the scope of the invention will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, while the present invention has been disclosed in connection with exemplary embodiments thereof, it should be understood that other embodiments may fall within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/007,320, filed Jun. 13, 2018, which claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/206,765, filed Nov. 29, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,025,759, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/417,853, filed Nov. 29, 2010, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/417,869, filed Nov. 29, 2010, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/417,858 filed Nov. 29, 2010 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/417,855 filed Nov. 29, 2010. All of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties. Additionally, this application relates to using comparison techniques discussed in the following patent applications, each of which is incorporated herein in its entirety: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2002, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,286,171; U.S. patent Ser. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,406,456; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,473,847.
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 |
5619649 | Kovnat et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634062 | Shimizu et al. | May 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 |
5787444 | Gerken et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5801702 | Dolan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5806078 | Hug et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819300 | Kohno et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832494 | Egger et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5897636 | Kaeser | Apr 1999 | A |
5898836 | Freivald et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6003060 | Aznar et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012087 | Freivald et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029175 | Chow et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038561 | Snyder et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049804 | Burgess et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067551 | Brown et al. | May 2000 | A |
6088702 | Plantz et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6128635 | Ikeno | Oct 2000 | A |
6145084 | Zuili et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6189019 | Blumer et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212534 | Lo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219818 | Freivald et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6243091 | Berstis | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263350 | Wollrath et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263364 | Najork et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269370 | Kirsch | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301368 | Bolle et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317777 | Skarbo et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321265 | Najork et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327611 | Everingham | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336123 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6351755 | Najork et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356937 | Montville et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377984 | Najork et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6404446 | Bates et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418453 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424966 | Meyerzon et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6449624 | Hammack et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6505237 | Beyda et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513050 | Williams et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6547829 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556982 | McGaffey et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6591289 | Britton | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6596030 | Ball et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6614789 | Yazdani et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6658626 | Aiken | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662212 | Chandhok et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6738762 | Chen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6745024 | DeJaco et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6832202 | Schuyler et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6918082 | Gross | Jul 2005 | B1 |
7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7085735 | Hall et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7107518 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113615 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7152019 | Tarantola et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181492 | Wen et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194761 | Champagne | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7212955 | Kirshenbau et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7233686 | Hamid | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240207 | Weare | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7299504 | Tiller et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7321864 | Gendler | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7356704 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7434164 | Salesin et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7454778 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7496841 | Hadfield et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7564997 | Hamid | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7570964 | Maes | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7613770 | Li | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7624447 | Horowitz et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7627613 | Dulitz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7640308 | Antonoff et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7673324 | Tirosh et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680785 | Najork | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7685298 | Day | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7694336 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707153 | Petito et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7720256 | Desprez et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730175 | Roesch et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7788235 | Yeo | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7796309 | Sadovsky et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7797724 | Calvin | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7818678 | Massand | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7844116 | Monga | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7857201 | Silverbrook et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877790 | Vishik et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890752 | Bardsley et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7895166 | Foygel et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7903822 | Hair et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7941844 | Anno | May 2011 | B2 |
7958101 | Teugels et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8005277 | Tulyakov et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8042112 | Zhu et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8117225 | Zilka | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8145724 | Hawks et al. | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8181036 | Nachenberg | May 2012 | B1 |
8196030 | Wang et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8201254 | Wilhelm et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8209538 | Craigie | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8233723 | Sundaresan | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8286085 | Denise | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8286171 | More et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8301994 | Shah | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8316237 | Felsher et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8406456 | More | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8473847 | Glover | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8478995 | Alculumbre | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8555080 | More et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8572388 | Boemker et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8620872 | Killalea | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8635295 | Mulder | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8732127 | Rotterdam et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8776190 | Cavage et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8797603 | Dougherty et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8839100 | Donald | Sep 2014 | B1 |
9092636 | More et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9098500 | Asokan et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9311624 | Diament et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9652485 | Bhargava et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
20010018739 | Anderson et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010042073 | Saether et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010682 | Johnson | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016959 | Barton et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020019827 | Shiman et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023158 | Polizzi et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020052928 | Stern et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020063154 | Hoyos et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065827 | Christie et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065848 | Walker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073188 | Rawson, III | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087515 | Swannack et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099602 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120648 | Ball et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129062 | Luparello | Sep 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 |
20030009518 | Harrow et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009528 | Sharif et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037010 | Schmelzer | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046572 | Newman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051054 | Redlich et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061260 | Rajkumar | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061350 | Masuoka et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078880 | Alley et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084279 | Campagna | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093755 | O'Carroll | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097454 | Yamakawa et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112273 | Hadfield | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115273 | Delia et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030131005 | Berry | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030147267 | Huttunen | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030191799 | Araujo et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196087 | Stringer et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030223624 | Hamid | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233419 | Beringer | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237047 | Borson | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002049 | Beavers et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040031052 | Wannamaker et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040122659 | Hourihane et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128321 | Hamer | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148567 | Jeon et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040186851 | Uhingan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187076 | Ki | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040225645 | Rowney et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040261016 | Glass et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021980 | Kanai | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050038893 | Graham | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055306 | Miller et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055337 | Bebo et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071755 | Harrington et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050108293 | Lipman et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138350 | Hariharan | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138540 | Baltus et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050204008 | Shinbrood | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050251738 | Hirano et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251748 | Gusmorino et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256893 | Perry | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268327 | Starikov | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278421 | Simpson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005247 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013393 | Ferchichi et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021031 | Leahy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060047765 | Mizoi et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060050937 | Hamid | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059196 | Sato et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064717 | Shibata et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060067578 | Fuse | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069740 | Ando | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060098850 | Hamid | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112120 | Rohall | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129627 | Phillips | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060158676 | Hamada | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060171588 | Chellapila et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184505 | Kedem | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190493 | Kawai et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060218004 | Dworkin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218643 | DeYoung | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224589 | Rowney | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236246 | Bono et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271947 | Lienhart et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272024 | Huang et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277229 | Yoshida et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294468 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294469 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005589 | Gollapudi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011211 | Reeves et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070025265 | Porras et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027830 | Simons et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038704 | Brown et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070094510 | Ross et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100991 | Daniels et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101154 | Bardsley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101413 | Vishik et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112930 | Foo et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070150443 | Bergholz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070179967 | Zhang | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192728 | Finley et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070220061 | Tirosh et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220068 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070253608 | Tulyakov et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070261099 | Broussard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070294318 | Arora et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294612 | Drucker et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070299880 | Kawabe et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080022003 | Alve | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028017 | Garbow et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033913 | Winburn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034282 | Zernik | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034327 | Cisler et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080065668 | Spence et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080515 | Tombroff et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082529 | Mantena et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091465 | Fuschino et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091735 | Fukushima et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080162527 | Pizano et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177782 | Poston et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080209001 | Boyle et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215667 | Rothbarth et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080219495 | Hulten et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235760 | Broussard et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263363 | Jueneman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275694 | Varone | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288597 | Christensen et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301193 | Massand | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080306894 | Rajkumar et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310624 | Celikkan | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320316 | Waldspurger et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090025087 | Peirson et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030997 | Malik | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090034804 | Cho et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049132 | Gutovski | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052778 | Edgecomb et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064326 | Goldstein | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083073 | Mehta et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083384 | Bhogal et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090129002 | Wu et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164427 | Shields et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177754 | Brezina et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090183257 | Prahalad | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187567 | Rolle | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090216843 | Willner et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222450 | Zigelman | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234863 | Evans | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090271620 | Sudhakar | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090319480 | Saito | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011077 | Shkolnikov et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011428 | Atwood et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017404 | Banerjee et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017850 | More et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100049807 | Thompson | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100058053 | Wood et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064004 | Ravi et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064372 | More et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076985 | Egnor | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100083230 | Ramakrishnan | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114985 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100114991 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131604 | Portilla | May 2010 | A1 |
20100146382 | Abe et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174678 | Massand | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174761 | Longobardi et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100186062 | Banti et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217987 | Shevade | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100235763 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100241943 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100257352 | Errico | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274765 | Murphy et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100287246 | Klos et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299727 | More et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100318530 | Massand | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100332428 | McHenry et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029625 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035655 | Heineken | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110041165 | Bowen | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110106892 | Nelson et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110107106 | Morii et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110125806 | Park | May 2011 | A1 |
20110141521 | Qiao | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145229 | Vailaya et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110197121 | Kletter | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110225646 | Crawford | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110252098 | Kumar | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110252310 | Rahaman et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110264907 | Betz et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110314384 | Lindgren et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011361 | Guerrero et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120016867 | Clemm et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120030563 | Lemonik et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120036157 | Rolle | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120079267 | Lee | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079596 | Thomas et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120110092 | Keohane et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117096 | Massand | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117644 | Soeder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131635 | Huapaya | May 2012 | A1 |
20120133989 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136862 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136951 | Mulder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120151316 | Massand | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120173881 | Trotter | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185511 | Mansfield et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120246115 | King et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120260188 | Park et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120265817 | Vidalenc et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120317239 | Mulder | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130007070 | Pitschke | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130060799 | Massand | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130074195 | Johnston et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130097421 | Lim | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130212707 | Donahue et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227043 | Murakami | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227397 | Tvorun | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20140032489 | Hebbar et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140115436 | Beaver et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140136497 | Georgiev et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140181223 | Homsany et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140280336 | Glover | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140281872 | Glover | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150026464 | Hanner et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150172058 | Follis | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20160350270 | Nakazawa | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20180011868 | Allen | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20190303056 | Matysiak | Oct 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
10177650 | Jun 1998 | JP |
2004265267 | Sep 2004 | JP |
2007299364 | Nov 2007 | JP |
1020010078840 | Aug 2001 | KR |
1020040047413 | Jun 2004 | KR |
1020060048686 | May 2006 | KR |
1020070049518 | May 2007 | KR |
1020080029602 | Apr 2008 | KR |
WO0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 2001052473 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 2002101577 | Dec 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“3B Clean”. |
“CS MAILsweeper™ 4.3 for SMTP” by Clearswift Ltd (© 2002). |
“EzClean—New Features—version 3.3”. |
“EzClean 3.2—New Features”. |
“EzClean FAQ”. |
“EzClean—Metadata removal utility for Microsoft Office”. |
“How do I make sure that there is no embarrassing Metadata in any documents that I attach to e-mails? ezClean makes it easy!”. |
“Lotus Announces cc:Mail for the Word Wide Web; Provides EasyAccess to E-Mail via the Web”. |
“Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues,” Internet Engineering TaskForce (IETF), RFC 3234 (Feb. 2002). |
“MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 1341 (Jun. 1992). |
“MIMEsweeper Solutions”. |
“Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF), RFC 821 (Aug. 1982). |
“Think Your Deletions are Gone Forever? Think Again! ezClean Makes Metadata Removal Easy!”. |
3B Clean: What is the Problem? 3B is the solution. |
3B Transform from 2005. |
3BOpen Doc Making StarOffice and OpenOffice.org a viable option. |
3BOpenDoc—Convert documents to and from OSF. |
Advisory Action dated Apr. 12, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 by More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Advisory Action dated Nov. 1, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Bettenburg et al., An Empirical Study on the Risks of Using Off-the-Shelf Techniques for Processing Mailing List Data, 2009, IEEE 4 pages. |
Bindu et al., Spam War. Battling Ham against Spam, 2011 IEEE 6 pages. |
Bitform Extract SDK 2005.1. |
Bobba et al. Attribute-Based Messaging: Access Control and Confidentiality, 2010, ACM 35 pages. |
Cawood, Stephen. How to Do Everything™ Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. McGraw-Hill, 2010. ISBN 978-0-07-174367-9 (pbk). Copyright © 2010. |
Chen et al., Online Detection and Prevention of Phishing Attacks, 2006, IEEE 7 pages. |
Classification Definitions Class 715, Data Processing: Presentation Processing of Document, Operator Interface Processing, and Screen Saver Display Processing; Feb. 2011; USPTO.gov, pp. 1-33. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209/082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13,306,798, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,765, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,819, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/620,364, filed Sep. 14, 2012. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Dominik Grolimund et al., Cryptree: A Folder Tree Structure for Cryptographic File Systems, Oct. 2-4, 2006, IEEE, pp. 189-198. |
EzClean version 3.3 Integration Guide for use with CS MailSweeper for SMTP. |
EZclean version 3.3. Installation Guide and Admin Manual. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 16, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 12, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 16, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798 of Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 1, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 by More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Final Office Action dated May 10, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Oct. 21, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2002/005821, dated Jan. 30, 2004, 6 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919, dated Jul. 1, 2010, 3 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, dated Mar. 3, 2010, 3 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010, pp. 1-9. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, pp. 1-6. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345, dated Apr. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
Jain, Pravin. The class of JAVA. Aug. 12, 2010. |
Jamison, Scott. Essential SharePoint 2010: Overview, Governance, and Planning. Addison-Wesley Professional; 1 edition (Aug. 22, 2010). |
Kamouskos et al., Active Electronic Mail, 2002, ACM 6 pages. |
Kaushik et al., Email Feedback: A Policy based Approach to Overcoming False Positives, 2005, 10 pages. |
Lightfoot, Johnathan and Beckett, Chris. Plain & Simple Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Copyright © 2010. |
Londer, Olga and Coventry, Penelope. Step by Step Microsoft® SharePoint® Foundation 2010. Microsoft Press. ISBN: 978-0-7356-2726-0. Copyright © 2011. |
M. Eric Johnson et al., The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users, Jan. 7-10, 2008, IEEE, pp. 1-10. |
Monga, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Monga, et al., “Perceptual Image Hashing via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 SDK: Building Block: Files and Documents, msn.microsoft.com (Nov. 1, 2010), https://msdn.microsof.com/en-us/library/office/ee538269(v=office.14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 SDK: How to Upload a File to a SharePoint Site from a Local Folders, msn.microsoft.com (Jul. 7, 2010), https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ms454491(v=office.14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 White Paper, Microsoft.com, www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=5c562f71-3aa9-46fd-abac-7d381813f2b8 (Sep. 2010), www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=5c562f71-3aa9-46fd-abac-7d381813f2b8 (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Microsoft, “Microsoft XP, Product Guide”, pp. 1-26, 2001. |
Nathaniel S. Good et al., Usability and privacy: a study of KaZaA P2P file-sharing, Apr. 5-10, 2003, ACM, vol. No. 5, Issue No. 1, pp. 137-144. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Non-final office action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 13/799,067 dated Oct. 30, 2014. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 of More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 of More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 1, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 of More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 13, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,819 by Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 22, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 6, 2012 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 9, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 11, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2006 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2006 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 17, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,765 by Mulder, S. P. M, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 7, 2008 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 8, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082 by S. More et al., filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 26, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 of More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 13, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 2, 2012, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12,275,185 by More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 24, 2008 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 25, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Office Web Apps Overview (Installed on SharePoint 2010 Products), Technet.Microsoft.com (Jun. 11, 2010), https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff431685(v=office. 14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Pattison, Ted et al. Inside Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. Critical Path Training, LLC © 2011. |
PC Magazine “Pure Intranets: Real-Time Internet Collaboration”, http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/featuresgrupware/gpwst.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 30, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 14, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 5, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Roussev, et al., “Integrating XML and Object-based Programming for Distributed Collaboration”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 254-259. |
Sahil Malik. Microsoft SharePoint 2010: Building Solutions for SharePoint 2010. Apress; 1st ed. edition (Jun. 7, 2010). |
Silver, Michael A.; MacDonald, Neil. Plan to Deal with Metadata Issues with Windows Vista. Gartner, Inc., Dec. 21, 2005. ID No. G00136321. |
Stephen Voida et al., Share and Share Alike: Exploring the User Interface Affordances of File Sharing, Apr. 22-27, 2006, ACM, pp. 1-10. |
Stolfo et al., AMT?MET: Systems for Modeling and Detecting Errant Email. 2003, IEEE 6 pages. |
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. |
Tsai, et al., “A Document Workspace for Collaboration and Annotation based on XML Technology”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 165-172. |
Tuklakov, et al., “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae,” International Workshop on Pattern Recognition or Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath UK, Oct 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,104, filed Mar. 7, 2013, Gofman. |
User Permissions and Permission Levels (SharePoint Foundation 2010)(technet.microsoft.com) (Jan. 4, 2011), https:/ltechnet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288074(v=office.14).aspx (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
V Monga, B.L. Evans Perceptual image hashing via feature points: performance evaluation and tradeoffs IEEE Wransactions on Image Processing, 15 (11) (2006), pp. 3453-3466. |
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. |
Wells et al., “Groupware & Collaboration Support”, www.objs.com/survey/groupwar.htm. Aug. 30, 2001, 10 pages. |
Workshare Ltd. Workshare Protect 4.5 Admin Guide, (c) 2006. |
Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, dated Mar. 3, 2010, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919, dated Jul. 1, 2010, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010 pp. 1-4. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, p. 1-5. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345 dated Apr. 28, 2011, 4 pages. |
XP-002257904, “Workshare Debuts Synergy”, 2003, 3 pages. |
Xuefeng Liang; et al., “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006, ICPR 2006, 18th International Conference on, vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
Yung, el al., “Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video Authentication,” Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, U.K., Sep. 1998. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200042787 A1 | Feb 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61417853 | Nov 2010 | US | |
61417869 | Nov 2010 | US | |
61417858 | Nov 2010 | US | |
61417855 | Nov 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16007320 | Jun 2018 | US |
Child | 16601357 | US | |
Parent | 13306765 | Nov 2011 | US |
Child | 16007320 | US |