System and method for optimizing electronic document layouts

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10970463
  • Patent Number
    10,970,463
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, October 31, 2019
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, April 6, 2021
    3 years ago
  • CPC
  • Field of Search
    • CPC
    • G06F17/211
    • G06F17/212
    • G06F17/30867
  • International Classifications
    • G06F17/00
    • G06F40/106
    • G06N20/00
    • G06F16/93
    • G06N7/00
    • Disclaimer
      This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Abstract
A system and method is provided that ranks and sorts websites, apps, email, or VR environment content in real-time to increase engagement, CTR, conversions, and revenue. A client applies attributes to sections of the digital content. A server system tracks end user inputs and generates optimized layouts for the digital content, such as a webpage. The document layout is ordered or reorganized before or after the document is delivered to the end user.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Field of the Invention


This invention relates to the general field of network delivered digital content, and more specifically toward a system and method that ranks and sorts mobile, web, and email content in real-time to increase customer engagement, click-through rate (CTR), and/or conversions. A client applies attributes to sections of the digital content. A server system tracks end user inputs and generates optimized layouts for the digital content, such as a webpage. The document layout is ordered or reorganized before or after the document is delivered to the end user.


Just as brick and mortar stores optimize their shelf space and floor-sets to increase conversions and order size, the digital world can also optimize the real estate of their websites, apps, emails, or virtual reality (VR) environment to maximize engagement, CTR, conversions, and revenue. Today, mobile, web, and email optimization are primarily done through data analysis, and AB or multivariate testing. The problem is that these optimizations are manual, non-scalable, and prone to errors.


Manual A/B testing or analytics is how web content optimization has occurred in the past. Analytics, A/B testing, and recommendation platforms can aid developers in optimizing page layout; however, none of these automate the optimization of the user interface. Furthermore, none of these enable real-time layout optimization based upon end-user behavior characteristics.


Thus there has existed a need for a system and method that ranks and sorts mobile, web, and email content in real-time to increase customer engagement, CTR, and/or conversions. Additionally, there is a need for a system that ranks and sorts content in virtual reality platforms, where the layout of a virtual environment can be optimized based on what a user views and interacts with.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The current disclosure provides just such a solution by having a system that automates the optimization of user interfaces. It restructures the user interface to present the most relevant information. The system can present a unique layout for all users (default), specific segments (cluster) of users, or for a specific user, based on the amount of data available.


Clients integrate their website with this system by adding tracking code to their system. This code tracks the impressions, positions, pixels, clicks, orders, revenue, and even virtual touch or handling of the users of the client's system (website, app, emails, or virtual reality environment). The system then uses randomized testing to rank the positions of content sections and/or subsections, while also ranking and scoring the actual page content. Then, the system places the best content in the best position, and the next best content in the next best position, and so on for the remaining content sections. Machine learning is used to determine the ideal weight of the various metrics used in the score, to maximize the client's key performance indicator (KPI). The KPI may be engagement, conversions, revenue, application signups, email signups, or other performance indicators based on the client's specific needs or specific application of the system.


A time decay function is also used to weigh more recent data more heavily than older data. The current system then uses the content score to sort the content modules (sections) in order, from best performing position to lowest performing position. Within these content sections, the system will also sort subsections of content in the same manner. The sort happens in real-time, and content can be dynamically resized to occupy a smaller or larger modules. The system can also remove content (i.e. sections or subsections) that are not performing well. This could be the result of the content performing below a required threshold (e.g. low conversion or CTR).


In addition, this technology can develop a unique sort for different segments (groups or cohorts) of users. These segments can be passed by the client, or identified by the system itself. In other words, users may experience a unique version of the page, app, email, or VR environment for different geolocations, whether they are new or repeat users, referring URL, or time of day, if it improves the KPI (e.g. CTR, conversion, revenue/impression) being optimized. The segments used can be determined by artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) algorithms, and can vary based on the client or the application of the technology.


When data permits, the content sort can also be user specific. In other words, when the system described herein has sufficient data to recommend an optimization to a specific user, it does so. When there is insufficient data, it provides an optimization based upon other criteria or data, such as aggregated data (user segment or default).


Finally, clients of the system select what content modules, or objects, of their page, app, email, or VR environment should be optimized. Furthermore, clients can choose to lock, or pin, content (objects) that they would like to remain static.


It is an object of the invention to provide a system and method for optimizing the placement of content on a webpage, and whether or not to serve that content.


It is another object of the invention to provide a system and method for optimizing webpage content based upon client selected criteria.


It is a further object of this invention to provide a system and method for sorting subsections within a section that is itself sorted on a webpage.


Particular embodiments of the current disclosure have a system for optimizing the layout of an electronic document comprising a database and a processor executing programming logic for interfacing with remote systems, the programming logic configured to provide a content sort service, a track service, and a machine learning process; where the track service accepts end user request data, where the track service stores the end user request data in the database, and where the track service provides the end user request data to the machine learning process; where the machine learning process uses the end user request data to generate and update models, where the models are stored in the database; where the content sort service accepts optimization requests for an electronic document, where the electronic document comprises a plurality of sections, where the content sort service accesses the database to obtain models for the optimization request, where the content sort service selects one or more models from the models obtained from the database; where the content sort service applies the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document. The one or more models selected by the content sort service is a randomized model, where the randomized model is used to provide a partial or fully randomized optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document. The content sort service further provides a response to an end user, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document. Alternatively, the content sort service further provides a response to a client server, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document. Each optimization request for an electronic document comprises data indicating that one or more of the plurality of sections of the electronic document are pinned. The pinned one or more of the plurality of sections of the electronic document are ignored by the content sort service. Each optimization request for an electronic document comprises a key performance indicator, where the content sort service uses the key performance indicator to select the one or more models obtained from the database. The content sort service uses a progressively localized content position randomization to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document. The track service provides the end user request data to the machine learning process via one or more log files or via a distributed messaging system. At least one of the plurality of sections of the electronic document comprises a plurality of subsections, where the content sort service further applies the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of subsections.


Another embodiment of the current disclosure is a method of optimizing the layout of an electronic document, comprising the steps of: selecting a plurality of sections of the electronic document for optimization; selecting one or more criteria for optimizing the order of the plurality of sections of the electronic document; sending a request to a server system to optimize the plurality of sections of the electronic document using the one or more criteria; and upon receiving an optimization response from the server system, rearranging the sections of the electronic document according to the optimization response received from the server system. The method further comprises the step of resizing the sections of the electronic document. The method further comprises the step of removing one or more sections from the electronic document if it fails to meet predefined minimum criteria. At least one of the plurality of sections of the electronic document comprises a plurality of subsections, where the method further comprises the step of sending a request to a server system to optimize the plurality of subsections of the electronic document using the one or more criteria; and upon receiving a subsection optimization response from the server system, rearranging the subsections according to the subsection optimization response received from the server system. The method further comprises the step of adding one or more attributes to one or more of the plurality of sections of the electronic document.


Further embodiments of the current disclosure have a system for optimizing the layout of an electronic document comprising a processor executing programming logic for interfacing with remote systems, the programming logic configured to: accept a request for an electronic document from an end user system, send an optimization request to a server system for an optimized layout of the electronic document, where the electronic document comprises a plurality of sections; receive an optimized layout response from the server system, rearrange the sections of the electronic document according to the optimized layout response from the server system; and send an electronic document response to the end user system, where the sections of the electronic document are rearranged. The optimization request comprises a key performance indicator. At least one of the sections of the electronic document comprises a plurality of subsections, where the programming logic is further configured to rearrange the subsections according to the optimized layout response from the server system. The electronic document response sent to the end user system comprises computer readable instructions, where the computer readable instructions comprise instructions to send input data generated by the end user to the server system.


As used herein, a client is an entity that provides webpage, app, email, VR, or other electronic document content to end users and sets the criteria on the server system that generates the optimized webpage, app, email, VR, or other electronic document content order or layout. An end user, or simply user, is the entity that is requesting and viewing the electronic document content of a client. The webpage layout is optimized for the end user. The electronic document, which includes without limitation webpage, app, email, and VR content, has two or more sections and/or subsections that can be reorganized or optimized.


While particular programming languages, file structures, databases, and operating systems may be discussed herein, other languages, file structures, databases, and operating systems may be implemented without departing from the scope of the current disclosure.


Terms and phrases used in this document, and variations thereof, unless otherwise expressly stated, should be construed as open ended as opposed to limiting. As examples of the foregoing: the term “including” should be read as meaning “including, without limitation” or the like; the term “example” is used to provide exemplary instances of the item in discussion, not an exhaustive or limiting list thereof; the terms “a” or “an” should be read as meaning “at least one,” “one or more” or the like; and adjectives such as “conventional,” “traditional,” “normal,” “standard,” “known” and terms of similar meaning should not be construed as limiting the item described to a given time period or to an item available as of a given time, but instead should be read to encompass conventional, traditional, normal, or standard technologies that may be available or known now or at any time in the future. Likewise, where this document refers to technologies that would be apparent or known to one of ordinary skill in the art, such technologies encompass those apparent or known to the skilled artisan now or at any time in the future.


The presence of broadening words and phrases such as “one or more,” “at least,” “but not limited to” or other like phrases in some instances shall not be read to mean that the narrower case is intended or required in instances where such broadening phrases may be absent. Additionally, the various embodiments set forth herein are described in terms of exemplary block diagrams, flowcharts and other illustrations. As will become apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art after reading this document, the illustrated embodiments and their various alternatives can be implemented without confinement to the illustrated examples. For example, block diagrams and their accompanying description should not be construed as mandating a particular architecture or configuration.


There has thus been outlined, rather broadly, the more important features of the invention in order that the detailed description thereof may be better understood, and in order that the present contribution to the art may be better appreciated. There are additional features of the invention that will be described hereinafter and which will form the subject matter of the claims appended hereto. The features listed herein and other features, aspects and advantages of the present invention will become better understood with reference to the following description and appended claims.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments of the invention and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this invention.



FIG. 1 is diagram showing an original page layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an optimized page layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the interaction between the client webpage and the server system according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a process for providing an optimized webpage layout using a client-side integration according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing an alternative process for providing an optimized webpage layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing another alternative process for providing an optimized webpage layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing a process executed on a server system for handling optimization requests from remote clients.



FIG. 8 is diagram showing the interactions between the client website and the server system according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.



FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing a process for providing an optimized webpage layout using server-side processes according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Many aspects of the invention can be better understood with the references made to the drawings below. The components in the drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale. Instead, emphasis is placed upon clearly illustrating the components of the present invention. Moreover, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts through the several views in the drawings.



FIG. 1 is diagram showing an original page layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. The page includes a header and a footer, with four sections there between labeled A, B, C, and D. Each section may have 1 or more subsections therein. For example, section A has subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; section B has just one subsection, section C has subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and section D has subsections 1, 2, and 3. Each section may have a different layout, such that the subsections are arranged differently compared to other sections.



FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an optimized page layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. As with the original page layout, the optimized page layout includes a header at the top and a footer at the bottom. However, the placement of the sections has been modified to optimize the layout. While section A remains at the top of the page, it is now followed by section C. Section D follows section C, with the last Section B placed at the bottom.


Furthermore, the subsections within each section have been optimized as well. For example, section A previously had a larger subsection 1, with subsections 2 through 5 beneath it. Now, however, section A has a larger subsection 4, with subsections 1, 2, 5, and 3 beneath it. In fact, each section, subsection, or both may be resized to fit within the available content area. As shown in FIGS. 1, and 2, subsections 1 and 2 are resized to fit the allocated space.



FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the interaction between the client webpage and the server system according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. The client webpage 10 sends an optimization request 11 to a server system 12. The server system 12 processes that request, and returns an optimization response 13 to the client webpage to act upon. The client webpage uses the optimization response to optimize the webpage layout.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a process for providing an optimized webpage layout using a client-side integration according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. Attributes are added 41 by the client to the client's webpage on the client's server 71. These attributes apply to particular sections or subsections of a webpage that the client wants optimized by the server system 12. Additionally, the client adds JavaScript code 42, or alternatively, a reference to download a JavaScript file that includes the JavaScript code. The JavaScript code includes computer readable instructions for interacting with the server system (such as tracking user behavior) and optimizing the content of the webpage. An end user 72 (or the end user's system or browser) then loads the client's webpage 43.


After loading the page, including the instructions contained in the JavaScript code or file, the instructions are executed and a request is made 44 to the server system 12 to obtain an optimized layout or order for the webpage downloaded by the end user 72. The server system 12 generates such an optimized order or layout, and returns a response with the optimized order 45 back to the end user 72. The instructions contained in the JavaScript code then optimize the webpage order or layout based upon the data received from the server system 12. The sections and subsections of the webpage are reorganized and moved around to optimize the content based upon the attributes set by the client. End user inputs, including without limitation impressions, clicks, and orders, are sent 46 to the server system 12. This input data is used to generate future optimized content for that particular end user, as well as other end users.



FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing a process for providing an optimized webpage layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. An end user makes a request to view a particular webpage, and that webpage request 20 is processed by a client server. The client server sends an optimization request 21 to the server system, which processes and generates optimization responses, discussed in more detail below. If the client server does not receive a response 22, or the response 22 is invalid, the client server sends default content 23 to the end user. If, on the other hand, the client server receives a valid response 22, it generates an optimized layout 24 using the response from the server system. For example, the client server will use the data in the response to organize a webpage from its original format, such as the one shown in FIG. 1, to produce the layout in an optimized format, such as the one shown in FIG. 2. The optimized content is then sent 25 to the end user.



FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing an alternative process for providing an optimized webpage layout according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. As in FIG. 5, an end user makes a request to view a particular webpage, and that webpage request 20 is processed by a client server. However, in this figure, the client server sends the page content 26 to the end user, which includes a reference to one or more scripts used to access and interact with the server system. The end user, or more specifically, the browser of the end user, loads the optimizer scripts 27 and then sends an optimization request 21 to the server system. If no response 22 is received from the server system, or an invalid response 22 is received from the server system, the page content originally received by the end user is left unchanged 28. If, on the other hand, a valid response 22 is received from the server system, the content received from the client server is reorganized 29 by the optimizer scripts to produce an optimized layout for the end user.



FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing a process executed on a server system for handling optimization requests from remote clients. The server system receives an optimization request 30, and then determines whether the request is authentic 31. In other words, it determines if the request is made from a webpage with a valid account that has been configured properly. If the server system determines that the request is not authentic or not valid 31, then the server system sends an error response 32. If, on the other hand, the server system determines that the request is authentic and valid 31, then the server system proceeds in generating an optimized sort order for an optimized layout 34. It then sends the optimized sort order response 35 back to the requestor.



FIG. 8 is diagram showing the interactions between the client website and the server system according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. The client website 10 interacts with the server system 12, whether through the client server or the end user's machine, through at least two services: a content sort service 15, and a track service 16. The content sort service 52 is a runtime component that returns the optimized sort order of the sections and/or subsections of a requested webpage. The track service 16 is a web service that tracks specific events, such as impressions and clicks. It writes events to a log file 17 as well as to the database 14. The log files may be written to in JSON format, and the data stored in a NoSQL database. The database 14 stores tracking information and is used by the content sort service 15 to provide optimized orders of sections and/or subsections of webpages. A machine learning (ML) process 18 generates aggregate data based on the tracked events as well as generates models based on online learning algorithms, discussed in more detail below. The generated models are stored into the database 14.


The content sort process begins when a client webpage 10 sends a request to the content sort service 15 of the server system 12 for an optimized layout. The content sort service 15 accesses the database 14 to determine whether the webpage is configured correctly, including without limitation whether the client webpage is authorized to access this service and if so, what KPI have been set for this particular webpage or, alternatively, whether there is sufficient data to automatically determine which KPI(s) to use based upon the different weights assigned to each KPI by the client. Subsequently, the content sort service 15 accesses the database 14 to find all applicable models for this particular request given the KPI(s) that are to be used. Models describe the predicted performance of content at different sort positions, as well as the relative strength of different positions within the webpage. The content sort service 15 generates scores for each of these models and uses the scores to determine which models to use. For example, each applicable model is given a score relative to its perceived ability to generate the optimal layout for a particular webpage for the particular user given the KPI(s) that are set for that particular webpage. The model with the best score is used to determine the sort order for the sections and/or subsections of this webpage.


Embodiments of the current disclosure also provide for the content sort process to designate sections or subsections for removal. If a particular model determines that a certain section or subsection does not meet or exceed a predefined minimum score or criteria, that section or subsection is removed from the layout. The removed content may be replaced with other content, or is simply not displayed in the electronic document.


For each request to the content sort service 15, the request will be randomly assigned to return either a “learning” response or an “optimized” response. For requests that are assigned to return an optimized response, the optimized sort order data representing the optimized order of the sections and/or subsections is returned to the webpage. For requests that are assigned to return a learning response, the optimized sort order data is at least partially randomized to allow the machine learning process to more efficiently test and predict an optimal content sort order. The randomization process for learning requests uses a progressively localized content position randomization whereby new content is randomly ordered across a wide range of positions, and as impression volumes increase, the content is randomly ordered across a progressively narrower range of positions around the calculated optimal position. This is designed in a way so as to minimize the learning costs for the machine learning algorithm. The resulting randomized sort order data representing the order of sections and/or subsections is returned to the webpage.


The track service 16 takes end user request or input data, such as impressions and clicks, and saves it to the database 14 as well as to log file(s) 17.


The machine learning process 18 is run continuously, at set increments of time, or at variable increments of time. The machine learning process 18 looks at log files 17 to process new events (end user request data) as they come in or shortly thereafter. Instead of reading log files, the machine learning process 18 can access the end user request data events using a distributed messaging system/service 19, such as Apache Kafka. In either instances, the machine learning process 18 aggregates data based on event type, such as impressions, clicks, conversion, revenue, and a/b test. Models are generated and regenerated using online learning algorithms, discussed in more detail below. The machine learning process 18 may also evaluate multiple algorithms to determine which model is most likely to provide the best optimized layout. Furthermore, multiple models may be combined together using Ensemble Learning methodologies, such as bucket of models, to provide more accurate models. The models generated by the machine learning process 18 are saved to the database 14 for use by the content sort service 15.


Machine learning algorithms, such as sequential learning, are used to create models for predicting and generating an optimized order of sections and/or subsections of the webpage. The content sort service uses these models to generate the optimized order data in response to requests for an optimized webpage layout.


In sequential learning, the algorithm attempts to minimize the error between a predicted optimized layout and an actual optimized layout. The machine learning process receives input data, such as from the log file or distributed messaging system. It uses this input to make a prediction of the optimized layout, or in other words, creates a model that generates an optimized layout. The optimized layout is displayed to an end user. The end user interacts with the layout, and generates additional end user request data, which is then received by the machine learning process. The machine learning process evaluates the error in its optimized layout, and updates its model to provide an improved model to generate optimized layouts.


By way of example, the machine learning process receives input data from a webpage with three sections: A, B, and C. It generates a model and saves that model to the database. An end user visits the webpage, and the webpage requests an optimized layout. The content sort service is looking to optimize click through by the user, that is, the webpage should be optimized such that the user clicks on at least one of the sections to travel to another page. Using the model generated by the machine learning process, the content sort service determines that the optimal layout is section B followed by section C, which is then followed by section A. This order data is delivered to the webpage, which is reordered and displayed to the end user. An optimal page layout would have the user clicking on the first section, that is, section B. However, the end user does not click on section B or section C, but rather clicks on the last section A. Another end user that is displayed this same layout does not click on any of the sections. These events are sent to the track service, which distributes the data to the machine learning process through log files or a distributed messaging system/service. The machine learning process evaluates the event data and determines that the optimized layout that should have been sent to the end users was section A followed by section B, which should have been followed by section C. The machine learning process updates its model accordingly, and saves it to the database.


The client selects which layouts it would like optimized, and the criteria or KPI used to optimize those layouts. Instead of selecting a specific KPI, the client may set an order of KPI to be used, or even apply a preference or weight to each KPI. The content sort service will then use the preferences or weights of each KPI to determine which model to use to provide the optimized order to generate the optimized layout of the web page.


In addition to selecting which sections should be optimized, users may also “pin” or select certain sections that should remain static or stationary relative to other sections. This can be helpful when a client wishes a particular section to be first, last, or follow or precede another section.


When a section is pinned, this section can be completely ignored. The optimization request leaves out the section in its request to the content sort service, and the content sort service returns an optimized sort order for the sections without regard to the pinned section. For example, a header section that is always displayed first, or a footer section that is always displayed last, is considered “pinned” and can be ignored by the system. Alternatively, the pinned section may be included in the request to the content sort service, but with a flag or an attribute that signifies the particular section has been pinned, and how it has been pinned (for example, first, last, or relative to another section). This may be relevant data to the content sort service to determine the model and/or may be used as input to the model to determine the optimized sort order. For example, when a particular section is pinned first, that may modify the optimal order generated by the models for a particular end user.



FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing a process for providing an optimized webpage layout using server-side processes according to selected embodiments of the current disclosure. The client adds attributes 41 to the sections and subsections of the electronic document (e.g., website) residing on the client's server 71 that the client wants optimized. The client also adds a JavaScript code or file 42 to their website or electronic document distribution system. This file is used to track user behavior (e.g. clicks, impressions, conversions, etc.). Additionally, the client installs a server-side script or code 49 on the client's server(s) that is responsible for the optimization of the electronic document. The client's website and server are then ready to accept requests. A user requests the client's page. The client's server makes a request to the content sort service of the server system to get the optimized order for the electronic document 44. The content sort service of the server system generates (as discussed above) and then returns the requested optimized order data 45, and the client's server 71 (through the instructions provided for in the server-side script or code on the client's server(s)) compares the optimized order with the current electronic document and moves the necessary elements. The client server 71 renders the optimized electronic document with the newly ordered elements and provides the electronic document to the end user 48. Inputs generated by the user while interacting with the electronic document (e.g., impressions, clicks, orders, etc.) are sent 46 to the track service of the server system 12 (per the instructions provided for in the JavaScript file) such that the server system may calculate optimized sorts and ordering for subsequent requested electronic documents.


While various embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not of limitation. Likewise, the various diagrams may depict an example architectural or other configuration for the invention, which is provided to aid in understanding the features and functionality that can be included in the invention. The invention is not restricted to the illustrated example architectures or configurations, but the desired features can be implemented using a variety of alternative architectures and configurations.


Indeed, it will be apparent to one of skill in the art how alternative functional configurations can be implemented to implement the desired features of the present invention. Additionally, with regard to flow diagrams, operational descriptions and method claims, the order in which the steps are presented herein shall not mandate that various embodiments be implemented to perform the recited functionality in the same order unless the context dictates otherwise.


Although the invention is described above in terms of various exemplary embodiments and implementations, it should be understood that the various features, aspects and functionality described in one or more of the individual embodiments are not limited in their applicability to the particular embodiment with which they are described, but instead can be applied, alone or in various combinations, to one or more of the other embodiments of the invention, whether or not such embodiments are described and whether or not such features are presented as being a part of a described embodiment. Thus, the breadth and scope of the present invention should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments.

Claims
  • 1. A system for optimizing the layout of an electronic document comprising a database and a processor executing programming logic for interfacing with remote systems, the programming logic configured to provide a content sort service; where the content sort service accepts an optimization request for an electronic document, where the electronic document comprises a plurality of sections, where the content sort service accesses the database to select one or more models for the optimization request, where the one or more selected models use a progressively narrowed range of content position randomization to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document, where the content sort service applies the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the content sort service further provides a response to an end user, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the content sort service further provides a response to a client server, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the optimization request for an electronic document comprises data indicating that one or more of the plurality of sections of the electronic document are pinned.
  • 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the pinned sections of the electronic document are ignored by the content sort service.
  • 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the optimization request for an electronic document comprises a key performance indicator, where the content sort service uses the key performance indicator to select the one or more models obtained from the database.
  • 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the programming logic is further configured to provide a track service, where the track service stores end user request data in the database.
  • 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the programming logic is further configured to provide a machine learning process, where the machine learning processes uses end user request data to generate and update the models.
  • 9. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of sections of the electronic document comprises a plurality of subsections, where the content sort service further applies the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of subsections.
  • 10. A method of optimizing the layout of an electronic document comprising the steps of: receiving an optimization request for an electronic document, where the electronic document comprises a plurality of sections;accessing a database to select one or more models for the optimization request, where the one or more selected models use a progressively narrowed range of content position randomization to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document,applying the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of resizing the sections of the electronic document based on the one or more selected models.
  • 12. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of removing one or more sections from the electronic document if the section fails to meet predefined minimum criteria.
  • 13. The method of claim 10, wherein at least one of the plurality of sections of the electronic document comprises a plurality of subsections, where the method further comprises the step of applying the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of subsections.
  • 14. The method of claim 11, further comprising the step of adding one or more attributes to one or more of the plurality of sections of the electronic document.
  • 15. The method of claim 11, wherein the optimization request comprises a key performance indicator.
  • 16. A system for optimizing the layout of an electronic document comprising a processor executing programming logic, the programming logic configured to provide a content sort service and a machine learning process; where the machine learning process uses end user request data to generate and update optimization models;where the content sort service accepts an optimization request for the electronic document, where the electronic document comprises a plurality of sections, where the content sort service selects one or more optimization models for the optimization request, where the optimization models use a progressively narrowed range of content position randomization to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document, where the content sort service applies the optimization models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 17. The system of claim 16, wherein the content sort service further provides a response to an end user, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 18. The system of claim 16, wherein the content sort service further provides a response to a client server, where the response comprises the optimized order for the plurality of sections for the electronic document.
  • 19. The system of claim 16, wherein the optimization request for an electronic document comprises a key performance indicator, where the content sort service uses the key performance indicator to select the one or more models obtained from the database.
  • 20. The system of claim 16, wherein at least one of the plurality of sections comprises a plurality of subsections, where the content sort service further applies the one or more selected models to generate an optimized order for the plurality of subsections.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This document claims the benefit of U.S. Prov. Pat. App. No. 62/335,050 filed on May 11, 2016 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/593,040 filed May 11, 2017, the entireties of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

US Referenced Citations (529)
Number Name Date Kind
3573747 Adams et al. Apr 1971 A
3581072 Nymeyer May 1971 A
4412287 Braddock, III Oct 1983 A
4674044 Kalmus et al. Jun 1987 A
4677552 Sibley, Jr. Jun 1987 A
4789928 Fujisaki Dec 1988 A
4799156 Shavit et al. Jan 1989 A
4808987 Takeda et al. Feb 1989 A
4823265 Nelson Apr 1989 A
4854516 Yamada Aug 1989 A
4903201 Wagner Feb 1990 A
RE33316 Katsuta et al. Aug 1990 E
5027110 Chang et al. Jun 1991 A
5053956 Donald et al. Oct 1991 A
5063507 Lindsey et al. Nov 1991 A
5077665 Silverman et al. Dec 1991 A
5101353 Lupien et al. Mar 1992 A
5136501 Silverman et al. Aug 1992 A
5168446 Wiseman Dec 1992 A
5205200 Wright Apr 1993 A
5243515 Lee Sep 1993 A
5258908 Hartheimer et al. Nov 1993 A
5280422 Moe et al. Jan 1994 A
5297031 Gutterman et al. Mar 1994 A
5297032 Trojan et al. Mar 1994 A
5301350 Rogan et al. Apr 1994 A
5305200 Hartheimer et al. Apr 1994 A
5325297 Bird et al. Jun 1994 A
5329589 Fraser et al. Jul 1994 A
5347632 Filepp et al. Sep 1994 A
5375055 Togher et al. Dec 1994 A
5377354 Scannell et al. Dec 1994 A
5394324 Clearwater Feb 1995 A
5407433 Loomas Apr 1995 A
5411483 Loomas et al. May 1995 A
5426281 Abecassis Jun 1995 A
5485510 Colbert Jan 1996 A
5493677 Balogh et al. Feb 1996 A
5553145 Micali Sep 1996 A
5557728 Garrett et al. Sep 1996 A
5579471 Barber et al. Nov 1996 A
5596994 Bro Jan 1997 A
5598557 Doner et al. Jan 1997 A
5621790 Grossman et al. Apr 1997 A
5640569 Miller et al. Jun 1997 A
5657389 Houvener Aug 1997 A
5664111 Nahan et al. Sep 1997 A
5664115 Fraser Sep 1997 A
5689652 Lupien et al. Nov 1997 A
5694546 Reisman Dec 1997 A
5706457 Dwyer et al. Jan 1998 A
5710889 Clark et al. Jan 1998 A
5715314 Payne et al. Feb 1998 A
5715402 Popolo Feb 1998 A
5717989 Tozzoli et al. Feb 1998 A
5721908 Lagarde et al. Feb 1998 A
5722418 Bro Mar 1998 A
5727165 Ordish et al. Mar 1998 A
5737599 Rowe et al. Apr 1998 A
5760917 Sheridan Jun 1998 A
5761496 Hattori Jun 1998 A
5761655 Hoffman Jun 1998 A
5761662 Dasan Jun 1998 A
5771291 Newton et al. Jun 1998 A
5771380 Tanaka et al. Jun 1998 A
5778367 Wesinger, Jr. et al. Jul 1998 A
5790790 Smith et al. Aug 1998 A
5794216 Brown Aug 1998 A
5794219 Brown Aug 1998 A
5796395 De Hond Aug 1998 A
5799285 Klingman Aug 1998 A
5803500 Mossberg Sep 1998 A
5818914 Fujisaki Oct 1998 A
5826244 Huberman Oct 1998 A
5835896 Fisher et al. Nov 1998 A
5845265 Woolston Dec 1998 A
5845266 Lupien et al. Dec 1998 A
5850442 Muftic Dec 1998 A
5870754 Dimitrova et al. Feb 1999 A
5872848 Romney et al. Feb 1999 A
5873069 Reuhl et al. Feb 1999 A
5873080 Coden et al. Feb 1999 A
5884056 Steele Mar 1999 A
5890138 Godin et al. Mar 1999 A
5890175 Wong et al. Mar 1999 A
5905975 Ausubel May 1999 A
5907547 Foladare et al. May 1999 A
5913215 Rubinstein et al. Jun 1999 A
5922074 Richard et al. Jul 1999 A
5924072 Havens Jul 1999 A
5926794 Fethe Jul 1999 A
5948040 DeLorme et al. Sep 1999 A
5948061 Merriman et al. Sep 1999 A
5974396 Anderson et al. Oct 1999 A
5974412 Hazlehurst et al. Oct 1999 A
5986662 Argiro et al. Nov 1999 A
5987446 Corey et al. Nov 1999 A
5991739 Cupps et al. Nov 1999 A
5999915 Nahan et al. Dec 1999 A
6012053 Pant et al. Jan 2000 A
6029141 Bezos et al. Feb 2000 A
6035288 Solomon Mar 2000 A
6035402 Vaeth et al. Mar 2000 A
6044363 Mori et al. Mar 2000 A
6045447 Yoshizawa et al. Apr 2000 A
6047264 Fisher et al. Apr 2000 A
6049797 Guha et al. Apr 2000 A
6055518 Franklin et al. Apr 2000 A
6058379 Odom et al. May 2000 A
6058417 Hess et al. May 2000 A
6058428 Wang et al. May 2000 A
6061448 Smith et al. May 2000 A
6065041 Lum et al. May 2000 A
6070125 Murphy et al. May 2000 A
6073117 Oyanagi et al. Jun 2000 A
6078914 Redfern Jun 2000 A
6085176 Woolston Jul 2000 A
6104815 Alcorn et al. Aug 2000 A
6119137 Smith et al. Sep 2000 A
6128649 Smith et al. Oct 2000 A
6141010 Hoyle Oct 2000 A
6167382 Sparks et al. Dec 2000 A
6178408 Copple et al. Jan 2001 B1
6185558 Bowman et al. Feb 2001 B1
6192407 Smith et al. Feb 2001 B1
6199077 Inala et al. Mar 2001 B1
6202051 Woolston Mar 2001 B1
6202061 Khosla et al. Mar 2001 B1
6226412 Schwab May 2001 B1
6243691 Fisher et al. Jun 2001 B1
6269238 Iggulden Jul 2001 B1
6271840 Finseth et al. Aug 2001 B1
6275820 Navin-Chandra et al. Aug 2001 B1
6275829 Angiulo et al. Aug 2001 B1
6356879 Aggarwal et al. Mar 2002 B2
6356905 Gershman et al. Mar 2002 B1
6356908 Brown et al. Mar 2002 B1
6366899 Kernz Apr 2002 B1
6370527 Singhal Apr 2002 B1
6373933 Sarkki et al. Apr 2002 B1
6374260 Hoffert et al. Apr 2002 B1
6381510 Amidhozour et al. Apr 2002 B1
6415270 Rackson et al. Jul 2002 B1
6415320 Hess et al. Jul 2002 B1
6434556 Levin et al. Aug 2002 B1
6456307 Bates et al. Sep 2002 B1
6460020 Pool et al. Oct 2002 B1
6466917 Goyal et al. Oct 2002 B1
6484149 Jammes et al. Nov 2002 B1
6489968 Ortega et al. Dec 2002 B1
6522955 Colborn Feb 2003 B1
6523037 Monahan et al. Feb 2003 B1
6601061 Holt et al. Jul 2003 B1
6604107 Wang Aug 2003 B1
6625764 Dawson Sep 2003 B1
6643696 Davis et al. Nov 2003 B2
6661431 Stuart et al. Dec 2003 B1
6665838 Brown et al. Dec 2003 B1
6675178 Chinchar et al. Jan 2004 B1
6694436 Audebert Feb 2004 B1
6701310 Sugiura et al. Mar 2004 B1
6718536 Dupaquis Apr 2004 B2
6725268 Jackel et al. Apr 2004 B1
6728704 Mao et al. Apr 2004 B2
6732161 Hess et al. May 2004 B1
6732162 Wood et al. May 2004 B1
6801909 Delgado et al. Oct 2004 B2
6856963 Hurwitz Feb 2005 B1
6889054 Himmel et al. May 2005 B2
6907401 Vittal et al. Jun 2005 B1
6912505 Linden et al. Jun 2005 B2
6978273 Bonneau et al. Dec 2005 B1
7043450 Velez et al. May 2006 B2
7069242 Sheth et al. Jun 2006 B1
7076453 Jammes et al. Jul 2006 B2
7076504 Handel et al. Jul 2006 B1
7080030 Eglen et al. Jul 2006 B2
7100111 McElfresh et al. Aug 2006 B2
7100195 Underwood Aug 2006 B1
7117207 Kerschbert et al. Oct 2006 B1
7127416 Tenorio Oct 2006 B1
7165091 Lunenfeld Jan 2007 B2
7167910 Farnham et al. Jan 2007 B2
7216115 Walters et al. May 2007 B1
7240016 Sturgis et al. Jul 2007 B1
7254547 Beck et al. Aug 2007 B1
7318037 Solari Jan 2008 B2
7324966 Scheer Jan 2008 B2
7340249 Moran et al. Mar 2008 B2
7349668 Ilan et al. Mar 2008 B2
7353188 Yim et al. Apr 2008 B2
7366755 Cuomo et al. Apr 2008 B1
7379890 Myr et al. May 2008 B2
7380217 Gvelesiani May 2008 B2
7383320 Silberstein et al. Jun 2008 B1
7401025 Lokitz Jul 2008 B1
7447646 Agarwal et al. Nov 2008 B1
7451476 Banks et al. Nov 2008 B1
7454464 Puthenkulam et al. Nov 2008 B2
7457730 Degnan Nov 2008 B2
7493521 Li et al. Feb 2009 B1
7496525 Mitchell Feb 2009 B1
7496527 Silverstein et al. Feb 2009 B2
7496582 Farnham et al. Feb 2009 B2
7516094 Perkowski Apr 2009 B2
7539696 Greener et al. May 2009 B1
7546625 Kamangar Jun 2009 B1
7552067 Nephew et al. Jun 2009 B2
7565615 Ebert Jul 2009 B2
7606743 Orzell et al. Oct 2009 B2
7610212 Klett et al. Oct 2009 B2
7653573 Hayes, Jr. et al. Jan 2010 B2
7834883 Adams Nov 2010 B2
7904348 Johnson et al. Mar 2011 B2
7912748 Rosenberg et al. Mar 2011 B1
7921031 Crysel et al. Apr 2011 B2
7941751 Ebert May 2011 B2
7979340 MacDonald Korth et al. Jul 2011 B2
7983950 De Vita Jul 2011 B2
7983963 Byrne et al. Jul 2011 B2
8086643 Tenorio Dec 2011 B1
8112303 Eglen et al. Feb 2012 B2
8140989 Cohen et al. Mar 2012 B2
8166155 Rachmeler Apr 2012 B1
8204799 Murray et al. Jun 2012 B1
8214264 Kasavin et al. Jul 2012 B2
8214804 Robertson Jul 2012 B2
8260852 Cselle Sep 2012 B1
8312056 Peng et al. Nov 2012 B1
8326662 Byrne et al. Dec 2012 B1
8370269 MacDonald-Korth et al. Feb 2013 B2
8370435 Bonefas et al. Feb 2013 B1
8452691 MacDonald Korth et al. May 2013 B2
8473316 Panzitta et al. Jun 2013 B1
8494912 Fraser et al. Jul 2013 B2
8545265 Sakamoto et al. Oct 2013 B2
8577740 Murray et al. Nov 2013 B1
8583480 Byrne Nov 2013 B2
8630960 Gross Jan 2014 B2
8676632 Watson et al. Mar 2014 B1
8693494 Fiatal Apr 2014 B2
8719075 MacDonald Korth et al. May 2014 B2
8793650 Hilerio et al. Jul 2014 B2
9047341 Pan Jun 2015 B2
9047642 Byrne et al. Jun 2015 B2
9448692 Mierau et al. Sep 2016 B1
9483788 Martin Nov 2016 B2
9741080 Byrne Aug 2017 B1
9747622 Johnson et al. Aug 2017 B1
9805425 MacDonald-Korth et al. Oct 2017 B2
9928752 Byrne et al. Mar 2018 B2
9940659 Behbahani et al. Apr 2018 B1
10074118 Johnson et al. Sep 2018 B1
10102287 Martin Oct 2018 B2
10269081 Byrne Apr 2019 B1
10423997 MacDonald Korth et al. Sep 2019 B2
10534845 Noursalehi et al. Jan 2020 B2
20010014868 Herz et al. Aug 2001 A1
20010034667 Petersen Oct 2001 A1
20010034668 Whitworth Oct 2001 A1
20010044751 Pugliese, III et al. Nov 2001 A1
20010047290 Petras et al. Nov 2001 A1
20010047308 Kaminsky et al. Nov 2001 A1
20010051996 Cooper et al. Dec 2001 A1
20020002513 Chiasson Jan 2002 A1
20020007356 Rice et al. Jan 2002 A1
20020013721 Dabbiere et al. Jan 2002 A1
20020019763 Linden et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020022995 Miller et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020023059 Bari et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020026390 Ulenas et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020029187 Meehan et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020038312 Donner et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020040352 McCormick Apr 2002 A1
20020042738 Srinivasan et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020049622 Lettich et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020056044 Andersson May 2002 A1
20020099578 Eicher, Jr. et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020099579 Stowell et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020099602 Moskowitz et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020107718 Morrill et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020107853 Hofmann et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020111826 Potter et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020120537 Morea et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020123957 Notarius et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020124100 Adams Sep 2002 A1
20020129282 Hopkins Sep 2002 A1
20020133502 Rosenthal et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020138399 Hayes et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020147625 Kolke, Jr. Oct 2002 A1
20020156802 Takayama et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020161648 Mason et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020188777 Kraft et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020194049 Boyd Dec 2002 A1
20020198784 Shaak et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020198882 Linden et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030004855 Dutta et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030005046 Kavanagh et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030009362 Cifani et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030009392 Perkowski Jan 2003 A1
20030014400 Siegel Jan 2003 A1
20030028451 Ananian Feb 2003 A1
20030028605 Millett et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030032409 Hutcheson et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030035138 Schilling Feb 2003 A1
20030036914 Fitzpatrick et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030040970 Miller Feb 2003 A1
20030041008 Grey et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030046149 Wong Mar 2003 A1
20030069740 Zeidman Apr 2003 A1
20030069790 Kane Apr 2003 A1
20030069825 Hoffman et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030083961 Bezos et al. May 2003 A1
20030088467 Culver May 2003 A1
20030088511 Karboulonis et al. May 2003 A1
20030093331 Childs et al. May 2003 A1
20030097352 Gutta et al. May 2003 A1
20030105682 Dicker et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030110100 Wirth, Jr. Jun 2003 A1
20030119492 Timmins et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030131095 Kumhyr et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030139969 Scroggie et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030140007 Kramer et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030140121 Adams Jul 2003 A1
20030158792 Perkowski Aug 2003 A1
20030163340 Fitzpatrick et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030167213 Jammes et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030167222 Mehrotra et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030177103 Ivanov et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030187745 Hobday et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030200156 Roseman et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030204449 Kotas et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030217002 Enborg Nov 2003 A1
20030220835 Barnes, Jr. Nov 2003 A1
20040006509 Mannik et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015416 Foster et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040029567 Timmins et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040041836 Zaner et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040044563 Stein Mar 2004 A1
20040055017 Delpuch et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040058710 Timmins et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040073476 Donahue et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040078388 Melman Apr 2004 A1
20040107136 Nemirofsky et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040117242 Conrad et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040122083 Pettit et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040122681 Ruvolo et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040122735 Meshkin Jun 2004 A1
20040122855 Ruvolo et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040128183 Challey et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040128283 Wang et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040128320 Grove et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040143731 Audebert et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040148232 Fushimi et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040172323 Stamm Sep 2004 A1
20040172379 Mott et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040174979 Hutton et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040186766 Fellenstein et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040199496 Liu et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040199905 Fagin et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040204989 Dicker et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040204991 Monahan et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040230989 Macey et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040240642 Crandell et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040249727 Cook, Jr. et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040267717 Slackman Dec 2004 A1
20050010925 Khawand et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021666 Dinnage et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050038733 Foster et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050044254 Smith Feb 2005 A1
20050055306 Miller et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060664 Rogers Mar 2005 A1
20050097204 Horowitz et al. May 2005 A1
20050114229 Ackley et al. May 2005 A1
20050120311 Thrall Jun 2005 A1
20050131837 Sanctis et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050144064 Calabria et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050193333 Ebert Sep 2005 A1
20050197846 Pezaris et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050197950 Moya et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050198031 Pezaris et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050202390 Allen et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050203888 Woosley et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050216300 Appelman et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050262067 Lee et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050273378 MacDonald-Korth et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060009994 Hogg et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060010105 Sarukkai et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015498 Sarmiento et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060031240 Eyal et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060041638 Whittaker et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060058048 Kapoor et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060069623 MacDonald Korth et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060085251 Greene Apr 2006 A1
20060173817 Chowdhury et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060206479 Mason Sep 2006 A1
20060230035 Bailey et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060235752 Kavanagh et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060259360 Flinn et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060271671 Hansen Nov 2006 A1
20060282304 Bedard et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070005424 Arauz Jan 2007 A1
20070027760 Collins et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070027814 Touriniemi Feb 2007 A1
20070073641 Perry et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070077025 Mino Apr 2007 A1
20070078726 MacDonald Korth et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070078849 Slothouber Apr 2007 A1
20070083437 Hamor Apr 2007 A1
20070094597 Rostom Apr 2007 A1
20070100803 Cava May 2007 A1
20070160345 Sakai et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070162379 Skinner Jul 2007 A1
20070174108 Monster Jul 2007 A1
20070192168 Van Luchene Aug 2007 A1
20070192181 Asdourian Aug 2007 A1
20070206606 Coleman et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070214048 Chan et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070226679 Jayamohan et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070233565 Herzog et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070239534 Liu et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070245013 Saraswathy et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070260520 Jha et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070282666 Afeyan et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070288298 Gutierrez et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070299743 Staib et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080015938 Haddad et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080021763 Merchant Jan 2008 A1
20080052152 Yufik Feb 2008 A1
20080071640 Nguyen Mar 2008 A1
20080082394 Floyd et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080103893 Nagarajan et al. May 2008 A1
20080120342 Reed et al. May 2008 A1
20080126205 Evans et al. May 2008 A1
20080126476 Nicholas et al. May 2008 A1
20080133305 Yates et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080140765 Kelaita et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080162574 Gilbert Jul 2008 A1
20080201218 Broder et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080215456 West et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080288338 Wiseman et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080294536 Taylor et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080300909 Rikhtverchik et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080301009 Plaster et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080305869 Konforty et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080313010 Jepson et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090006190 Lucash et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090030755 Altberg et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090030775 Vieri Jan 2009 A1
20090106080 Carrier et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090106127 Purdy et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090110181 Koenig et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090119167 Kendall et al. May 2009 A1
20090157537 Miller Jun 2009 A1
20090164323 Byrne Jun 2009 A1
20090182589 Kendall et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090204848 Kube et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090222348 Ransom et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090222737 Liesche et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090234722 Evevsky Sep 2009 A1
20090240582 Sheldon-Neal et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090276284 Yost Nov 2009 A1
20090276305 Clopp Nov 2009 A1
20090292677 Kim Nov 2009 A1
20090293019 Raffel et al. Nov 2009 A1
20090313173 Singh et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100042684 Broms et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100070448 Omoigui Mar 2010 A1
20100076816 Phillips Mar 2010 A1
20100076851 Jewell, Jr. Mar 2010 A1
20100094673 Lobo et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100107123 Sareen et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100145831 Esfandiari et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100146413 Yu Jun 2010 A1
20100228617 Ransom et al. Sep 2010 A1
20110010656 Mokotov Jan 2011 A1
20110055054 Glasson Mar 2011 A1
20110060621 Weller et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110103699 Ke et al. May 2011 A1
20110153383 Bhattacharjya et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110153663 Koren et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110173076 Eggleston et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110196802 Ellis et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110225050 Varghese Sep 2011 A1
20110231226 Golden Sep 2011 A1
20110231383 Smyth et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110258049 Ramer et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110271204 Jones et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110276513 Erhart et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110289068 Teevan et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120005187 Chavanne Jan 2012 A1
20120030067 Pothukuchi et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120084135 Nissan et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120158715 Maghoul et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120164619 Meer Jun 2012 A1
20120166299 Heinstein et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120231424 Calman et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120233312 Ramakumar et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120278388 Kleinbart et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120284336 Schmidt et al. Nov 2012 A1
20130031470 Daly, Jr. Jan 2013 A1
20130073392 Allen et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130080200 Connolly et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130080426 Chen et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130085893 Bhardwaj et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130144870 Gupta et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130145254 Masuko et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130151331 Avner et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130151388 Falkenborg et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130185164 Pottjegort Jul 2013 A1
20130191409 Zeng et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130254059 Teo Sep 2013 A1
20130268561 Christie et al. Oct 2013 A1
20140019313 Hu et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140025509 Reisz et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140032544 Mathieu et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140114680 Mills et al. Apr 2014 A1
20140136290 Schiestl et al. May 2014 A1
20140172652 Pobbathi et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140180758 Agarwal et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140200959 Sarb et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140259056 Grusd Sep 2014 A1
20140289005 Laing et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140337090 Tavares Nov 2014 A1
20140372415 Fernandez-Ruiz Dec 2014 A1
20150019958 Ying et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150286742 Zhang Oct 2015 A1
20150287066 Wortley et al. Oct 2015 A1
20170344622 Islam et al. Nov 2017 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (26)
Number Date Country
2253543 Mar 1997 CA
2347812 May 2000 CA
0636993 Apr 1999 EP
0807891 May 2000 EP
1241603 Sep 2002 EP
2397400 Jul 2004 GB
2424098 Sep 2006 GB
2001283083 Oct 2001 JP
2002318935 Oct 2002 JP
2007021920 Feb 2007 JP
2009505238 May 2009 JP
WO9717663 May 1997 WO
WO9832289 Jul 1998 WO
WO9847082 Oct 1998 WO
WO9849641 Nov 1998 WO
WO9959283 Nov 1999 WO
WO0025218 May 2000 WO
WO0109803 Feb 2001 WO
WO0182135 Nov 2001 WO
WO0197099 Dec 2001 WO
WO0237234 May 2002 WO
WO03094080 Nov 2003 WO
WO2007021920 Feb 2007 WO
WO2012093410 Jul 2012 WO
WO2015116038 Aug 2015 WO
WO2015176071 Nov 2015 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (108)
Entry
2Roam, Inc., multiple archived pages of www.2roam.com retrieved via Internet Archive Wayback Machine on Jun. 10, 2008.
Alt et al., “Bibliography on Electronic Commerce,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 5 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Alt et al., “Computer Integrated Logistics,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 1, No. 3.
Anonymous, Image manipulation (image-editing software and image-manipulation systems)(Seybold Special Report, Part II), Seybold Report on Publishing Systems, May 15, 1995, pS35(9), vol. 24, No. 18.
auctionwatch.com, multiple pages—including search results for “expedition,” printed Apr. 21, 2011.
auctiva.com, multiple pages, undated but website copyright date is “1999-2000.”.
Ball et al., “Supply chain infrastructures: system integration and information sharing,” ACM SIGMOD Record, 2002, vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 61-66.
Berger et al., “Random Ultiple-Access Communication and Group Testing,” IEEE, 1984.
Braganza, “IS Resarch at Cranfield—A Look at the Future,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Brecht et al., “The IM 2000 Research Programme,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Business Wire business/technology editors, “Sellers Flock to OutletZoo.com as New Automatic Price Drop Method Moves Excess Inventory Online,” Business Wire, Oct. 25, 1999.
Business Wire business editors/high-tech writers, “PictureWorks Technology, Inc. Expands in Real Estate Market with Adoption of Rimfire on REALTOR.com,” Business Wire, Nov. 8, 1999.
Business Wire business editors/high-tech writers, “PictureWorks Technology, Inc. Shows Strong Revenue Growth in Internet Imaging Business,” Business Wire, Nov. 10, 1999.
Business Wire business editors/high-tech writers, “2Roam Partners with Pumatech to Delivery Wireless Alerts,” Business Wire, Dec. 18, 2000.
Business Wire business editors/high-tech writers, “2Roam Takes eHow's How-to Solutions Wireless: With 2Roam, the Web's One-Stop Source for getting Things Done is on More Wireless Devices, with Ability to Purchase Its Products from Anywhere,” Business Wire, Oct. 2, 2000.
Business Wire business editors/high-tech writers, “2Roam Drives Hertz to the Wireless Web: Number One Car Rental Company to Provide Customers Wireless Access from Any Device,” Business Wire, Aug. 7, 2001.
buy.com, www.buy.com homepage, printed Oct. 13, 2004.
Chen et al., “Detecting Web Page Structure for Adaptive Viewing on Small Form Factor Devices,” ACM, May 20-24, 2003.
Chen, M. (2007). Knowledge assisted data management and retrieval in multimedia database systems (Order No. 3268643).
Y.K. Choi and S. K. Kim, “An auxillary reccomendation system for repetitively purchasing items in E-commerce,” 2014 International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BIGCOMP), Bangkok, 2014, pp. 96-98. (Year 2014).
Clarke, “Research Programme in Supra-organizational Systems,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Clemons et al., “Evaluating the prospects for alternative electronic securities markets,” Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on information systems, New York, New York, United States, pp. 53-64, 1991.
Fan, J., Keim, F.A., Gao, Y., Luo, H. and Li, Z. (2009). JustClick: Personalized Image Recommendation via Exploratory Search from Large-Scale Flickr Images. Feb. 2009. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 19(2), pp. 2730288. (Year: 2009).
friendster.com, homepage and “more info” pages, printed Apr. 29, 2004.
Google News archive search for “2Roam marketing” performed over the date range 2000-2003.
Google News archive search for “2Roam SMS” performed over the date range 2000-2008.
Grabowski et al., “Mobile-enabled grid middleware and/or grid gateways,” GridLab—A Grid Application Toolkit and Testbed, Work Package 12—Access for Mobile Users, Jun. 3, 2003.
Graham, “The Emergence of Linked Fish Markets in Europe,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Jul. 1993, 4 pages, vol. 8, No. 2.
Gunthorpe et al., “Portfolio Composition and the Investment Horizon,” Financial Analysts Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1994, pp. 51-56.
Halperin, “Toward a Process Handbook for Organizational Coordination Processes,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Hess et al., “Computerized Loan Origination Systems: An Industry Case Study of the Electronic Markets Hypothesis,” MIS Quarterly, Sep. 1994, pp. 251-275.
IBM, “Anyonymous Delivery of Goods in Electronic Commerce,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Mar. 1996, pp. 363-366, vol. 39, No. 3.
IBM, “Personal Optimized Decision/Transaction Program,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Jan. 1995, pp. 83-84, vol. 38, No. 1.
Icrossing, “Icrossing Search Synergy: Natural & Paid Search Symbiosis,” Mar. 2007.
IEEE 100—The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000. Entire book cited; table of contents, source list, and terms beginning with A included. ISBN 0-7381-2601-2a.
Ives et al., “Editor's Comments—MISQ Central: Creating a New Intellectual Infrastructure,” MIS Quarterly, Sep. 1994, p. xxxv.
Joshi, “Information visibility and its effect on supply chain dynamics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000 (fig. 4.5; p. 45).
Klein, “Information Logistics,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, pp. 11-12, vol. 3, No. 3.
Klein, “Introduction to Electronic Auctions,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Dec. 1997, 4 pages, vol. 7, No. 4.
Kubicek, “The Organization Gap,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
S. Kulkarni, A. M. Sankpal, R.R. Mudholkar and Kirankumari, “Recommendation engine: Matching individual/group profiles for better shopping experience,” 2013 15th International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies (ICACT), Rajampet, 2013, pp. 1-6. (Year: 2013).
Kuula, “Telematic Services in Finland,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Lalonde, “The EDI World Institute: An International Approach,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Lee et al., “Intelligent Electronic Trading for Commodity Exchanges,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Lee et al., “Electronic Brokerage and Electronic Auction: The Impact of IT on Market Structures,” Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1996, pp. 397-406.
Lee, “AUCNET: Electronic Intermediary for Used-Car Transactions,” Electronic Market—The International Journal, Dec. 1997, pp. 24-28, vol. 7, No. 4.
T.Y. Lee, S. Li and R. Wei, “Needs-Centric Searching and Ranking Based on Customer Reviews,” 2008 10th IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology and the Fifth IEEE Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 128-135. (Year: 2008).
Levy, Michael, and Dhruv Grewal. “Supply chain management in a networked economy.” Journal Retailing 76.4 (2000): 415-429.
Live365 press release, “Live365 to Offer Opt-In Advertising on Its Website,” Oct. 15, 2004.
London Business School, “Overture and Google: Internet Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Advertising Options,” Mar. 2003.
M2 Presswire, “Palm, Inc.: Palm unveils new web browser optimised for handhelds; HTML browser offers high-speed web-browsing option,” Mar. 13, 2002.
Malone et al., “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies,” Communications of the ACM, Jun. 1987, pp. 484-497, vol. 30, No. 6.
Mansell et al., “Electronic Trading Networks: The Route to Competitive Advantage?” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Mardesich, “Onsale takes auction gavel electronic,” Computer Reseller News, Jul. 8, 1996, pp. 2, 32.
Marteau, “Shop with One Click, Anywhere, Anytime,” Information Management and Consulting, 2000, pp. 44-46, vol. 15, No. 4.
Massimb et al., “Electronic Trading, Market Structure and Liquidity,” Financial Analysts Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1994, pp. 39-49.
McGinnity, “Build Your Weapon,” PC Magazine, Apr. 24, 2011, printed from www.pcmag.com/print_article2?0,1217,a%253D3955,00.asp.
Meade, “Visual 360: a performance appraisal system that's ‘fun,’” HR Magazine, 44, 7, 118(3), Jul. 1999.
“Mediappraise: Mediappraise Receives National Award for Web-Based Technology That Enables Companies to Solve Thorny HR Problem,” Dec. 14, 1998.
Medvinsky et al., “Electronic Currency for the Internet,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
metails.com, www.metails.com homepage, printed Oct. 13, 2004.
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, front matter and p. 33.
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, front matter, back matter, and pp. 479, 486.
Neches, “FAST—A Research Project in Electronic Commerce,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 4 pages, vol. 3., No. 3.
Nieisser, “Which is better for Social Media Monitoring: TweetDeck or SproutSocial” Mar. 17, 2011, Social Media Examiner, https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/which-is-better-for-social-media-monitoring-tweetdeck-or-sproutsocial/.
Neo, “The implementation of an electronic market for pig trading in Singapore,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Dec. 1992, pp. 278-288, vol. 1, No. 5.
O'Mahony, “An X.500-based Product Catalogue,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
“ONSALE: ONSALE Brings Thrill of Auctions and Bargain Hunting Online: Unique Internet retail services debuts with week-long charity auction for The Computer Museum in Boston,” May 24, 1995, printed from www.dialogweb.com/cgi/dwclient?dwcommand,DWEBPRINT%20810-489267.
“ONSALE joins fray as online shopping pcks up speed: Internet Booms,” Comptuer Reseller News, Jun. 5, 1995.
Palm, Inc., PalmTM Web Pro Handbook, copyright 2002-2003.
Post et al., “Application of Auctions as a Pricing Mechanism for the Interchange of Electric Power,” IEEE Transactions of Power Systems, Aug. 1995, pp. 1580-1584, vol. 10, No. 3.
Preist et al., “Adaptive agents in a persistent shout double auction,” International Conference on Information and Computation, Proceedings of the first international conference on information and computation economies, Oct. 25-28, 1998, Charleston, United States, pp. 11-18.
Qualcomm, “Brew Developer Support,” printed from web.archive.org/web/20020209194207/http://www.qualcomm.com/brew/developer/support/kb/52.html on Aug. 30, 2007.
RCR Wireless News, “Lockheed Martin to use 2Roam's technology for wireless platform,” RCR Wireless News, Sep. 10, 2001.
Reck, “Formally Specifying an Automated Trade Execution System,” J. Systems Software, 1993, pp. 245-252, vol. 21.
Reck, “Trading-Process Characteristics of Electronic Auctions,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Dec. 1997, pp. 17-23, vol. 7, No. 4.
repcheck.com, www.repcheck.com homepage, printed from web.archive.org/web/20020330183132/http://repcheck.com on Sep. 5, 2009.
Resnick et al., “Reputation Systems,” Communications of the ACM, Dec. 2000, pp. 45-48, vol. 43, No. 12.
Rockoff et al., “Design of an Internet-based system for remote Dutch auctions,” Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 1995, pp. 10-16, vol. 5, No. 4.
Rodriguez, Camille, HootSuite vs. social Oomph vs. Tweekdeck, Jan. 4, 2012, http://polkadotimpressions.com/2012/01/04/hootsuite-vs-social-oopmphvs.tweetdeck/ (Year: 2012).
Rose, “Vendors strive to undo Adobe lock-hold,” Computer Reseller News, Feb. 5, 1996, n 66669, p. 71(7).
Ross, David Frederick, Frederick S. Weston, and W. Stephen. Introduction to supply chain management technologies. CRC Press, 2010.
Rysavy, “Mobile-commerce ASPs do the legwork,” Network Computing, Jan. 22, 2001, p. 71, 6 pgs., vol. 12, No. 2.
Saunders, “AdFlight to Offer WAP Ads,” Oct. 17, 2000, printed from clickz.com/487531/print.
Schaffer, Neil, The Top 20 Twitter clients—HootSuite, TweetDeck and More, Jan. 31, 2012, https://maximizesocialbusinss.com/top-20-twitter-clients-2012-9175/ (Year: 2012).
Schmid, “Electronic Markets,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Schwankert, “Matsushita Taps 2Roam for Wireless Solutions,” www.internetnews.com/bus-news.article.php/674811, Feb. 2, 2001.
Sen, “Inventory and Pricing Models for Perishable Products,” Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation—University of Southern California, Aug. 2000.
Siegmann, “Nowhere to go but up,” PC Week, Oct. 23, 1995, 3 pages, vol. 12, No. 42.
Telephony Staff, “Air-ASP,” Telephony Online, Oct. 2, 2000, 3 pages.
Teo, “Organizational Factors of Success in Using EDIS: A Survey of Tradenet Participants,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Tjostheim et al., “A case study of an on-line auction for the World Wide Web,” printed from www.nr.no/gem/elcom/puplikasjoner/enter98e.html on Jun. 10, 1990, 10 pages.
Turban, “Auctions and Bidding on the Internet: An Assessment,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Dec. 1997, 5 pages, vol. 7, No. 4.
ubid.com, “How do I Updated my Address, Phone, Credit Card, Password, etc.?” printed from web.archive.org/web/20010208113903/www.ubid.com/help/topic13asp on Aug. 30, 2007.
ubid.com, “How do I track my shipment?” printed from web.archive.org/web/20010331032659/www.ubid.com/help/topic27.asp on Aug. 30, 2007.
ubid.com, “Can I track all of my bids from My Page?” printed from web.archive.org/web/20010208114049/www.ubid.com/help/topic14.asp on Aug. 30, 2007.
Van Heck et al., “Experiences with Electronic Auctions in the Dutch Flower Industry,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Dec. 1997, 6 pages, vol. 7, No. 4.
Verizon Wireless, “Verizon Wireless Customers Get It NowSM; Get Games, Get Pix, Get Ring Tones and Get Going in Full Color,” press release to PRNEWSWIRE, Sep. 23, 2002.
Warbelow et al., “AUCNET: TV Auction Network System,” Harvard Business School 9-190-001, Jul. 19, 1989, Rev. Apr. 12, 1996, pp. 1-15.
Weber, “How Financial Markets are Going On-line,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 2 pages, vol. 3, No. 3.
Wireless Internet, “DailyShopper Selects 2Roam to Enable Mobile Customers to Retrieve Nearby Sales and Promotions Information,” Wireless Internet, Apr. 2001.
Wireless Week, “Verizon Wireless Gets Going on BREW Agenda,” Wireless Week, Sep. 23, 2002.
xchanger.net, webpage printed from www.auctiva.com/showcases/as_4sale.asp?uid=exchanger, undated but at least as early as Oct. 12, 2000.
Yu et al., “Distributed Reputation Management for Electronic Commerce,” Computational Intelligence, 2002, pp. 535-549, vol. 18, No. 4.
Zetmeir, Auction Incentive Marketing, print of all pages of website found at home.earthlink.net/˜bidpointz/ made Oct. 8, 2004.
Zimmermann, “Integration of Financial Services: The TeleCounter,” Electronic Markets—The International Journal, Oct. 1993, 1 page, vol. 3, No. 3.
Zwass, “Electronic Commerce: Structures and Issues,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Fall 1996, pp. 3-23, vol. 1, No. 1.
Message Passing from Wikipedia, archived May 6, 2016, retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/message_passing, 4 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200065357 A1 Feb 2020 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
62335050 May 2016 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 15593040 May 2017 US
Child 16669971 US