1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to user interfaces for searching and browsing and, more specifically, to user interfaces that are intended to operate on input-constrained devices and to provide relevant search results with a minimum of user interaction.
2. Discussion of Related Art
Discovery of desired content is not always simple as searching for a person, place or object and selecting the desired results. The user's intent may be deeper and broader, and retrieving the desired results might require more than merely providing more search terms. For example, a user may want to first discover a particular person, place, or entity, then browse through results in that context, and finally, make further refinements. In this case, the search system would need to be able to infer that the user is searching or browsing in a particular context, and serve content related to that context that satisfies the user's intent. A user progressively adding additional search terms may be misinterpreted as an attempt to intersect multiple interests rather than as a context based search. Some search engines have attempted to define specific grammars for users to specify a context search, but these grammars are often complex and idiosyncratic, and thus only experienced and advanced users can use them effectively. The expression and discovery of intent is further complicated by the possibility that a query may be entered using ambiguous keypad input (e.g., typed on a cellular phone using ambiguous keys).
The invention provides methods of and systems for text disambiguation and context designation in incremental search.
Under one aspect of the invention, a user-interface method for selecting a subset of items from a relatively large set of items in response to search criteria including ambiguous keystrokes entered by a user from a keypad with overloaded keys and including unambiguous metadata associated with a previously selected search result includes receiving ambiguous keystrokes entered by a user from a keypad with overloaded keys. A given key of the keypad is in fixed association with a plurality of alphabetical and numerical symbols the user is using to search for desired items. In response to receiving the ambiguous keystrokes, the method selects and presents a first subset of items and corresponding unambiguous metadata associated with the items presented based on the ambiguous keystrokes. The method also includes receiving a selection of one of the items of the first subset of items from the user, and, in response to a locking operation received from the user, locking in fixed relation at least one of the ambiguous keystrokes to at least one unambiguous metadata term associated with the selected item. The method further includes, subsequent to receiving the locking operation, selecting and presenting a second subset of items based at least in part on the locked unambiguous metadata term, and presenting the second subset of items.
Under another aspect of the invention, the unambiguous metadata term locked in fixed relation to the at least one of the ambiguous keystrokes is one of the presented metadata terms associated with the selected item of the first subset. The locked metadata term lexically disambiguates the items of the first subset from each other for the subsequent selecting and presenting step.
Under a further aspect of the invention, the unambiguous metadata term locked in fixed relation to the at least one of the ambiguous keystrokes is a metadata term describing a concept associated with the selected item of the first subset. Only items associated with the concept of the selected item are selected and presented in the subsequent selecting are presenting step.
Under yet another aspect of the invention, the method also includes receiving a browse action from the user for highlighting one of the presented items of the first subset. In response to the user browse action, the method transforms at least part of the ambiguous keystrokes into at least one unambiguous metadata term associated with the highlighted item At least some of the characters of the unambiguous metadata term match the alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with the ambiguous keystrokes entered by the user.
Under a still further aspect of the invention, the receiving a selection of one of the items of the first subset of items includes receiving a browse action from the user for highlighting one of the presented items of the first subset. In addition, receiving a locking operation from the user includes receiving at least one additional keystroke entry from the user.
Under another aspect of the invention, the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user is a keystroke for performing an explicit lock operation.
Under yet another aspect of the invention, the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user includes additional ambiguous keystrokes entered by the user for providing additional alphabetical or numerical symbols for searching for desired items.
Under a further aspect of the invention, systems including logic for performing the methods above are provided.
For a more complete understanding of various embodiments of the present invention, reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:
Embodiments of the invention described here enable a user to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous and/or incomplete text query entries based on terms and metacontent associated with search results that are determined by a search engine to be relevant to the user's query input. A user interface incorporating the techniques disclosed herein can use an ambiguous keypad (e.g., a keypad with overloaded keys) or an unambiguous keypad to receive a search query input from a user. The input query symbols may be, for example, single numeric characters (e.g., on an ambiguous keypad) or single text-alphabet characters (e.g., on an unambiguous QWERTY keypad). Embodiments of the invention can also be used with incremental search techniques, in which results are retrieved as each character is typed.
Techniques for selecting a set of results responsive to the user's query include, but are not limited to, those disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/235,928, entitled Method and System For Processing Ambiguous, Multi-Term Search Queries, filed Sep. 27, 2005, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/136,261, entitled Method and System For Performing Searches For Television Content Using Reduced Text Input, filed May 24, 2005, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/246,432, entitled Method and System For Incremental Search With Reduced Text Entry Where The Relevance of Results is a Dynamically Computed Function of User Input Search String Character Count, filed Oct. 7, 2005, all of which are herein incorporated by reference. Similarly, lists of relevant results can be displayed using techniques disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/123,940, entitled Method and System for Search with Reduced Physical Interaction Requirements, filed on May 20, 2008, incorporated by reference herein.
While the user is composing a text query on an ambiguous keypad, the user's query, in general, can be said to be ambiguous (in the sense of the symbol being from an overloaded numeric keypad, where each key corresponds to a set containing more than one character, as is standard in cellular telephones) as well as incomplete (in the sense that one or more words in the query could be incomplete). For an illustration of ambiguous and incomplete queries and query-words, consider the following example. Suppose that the user's intended complete and unambiguous query is “engelbert humperdinck biggest hit.” An incomplete but unambiguous version of the same query is “engel hump bigg hit” because the first three query-words in the latter query are prefixes of the respective first three query-words in the complete and unambiguous query. Similarly, an incomplete as well as ambiguous version of the same query would be entered by pressing the keys labeled “36435 4867 2444 448” (assuming this query is entered using a standard numeric keypad of the kind commonly found in telephones and/or television remote controls) because the query-words “36435,” “4867,” and “2444” are prefixes of the numeric versions of the first three query-words in the complete and unambiguous query. The words “humpback” and “humperdinck” both match the incomplete query-word “hump,” because “hump” is a prefix of both the words. The words “humpback” and “humperdinck” both match the ambiguous and incomplete query-word “4867,” because “4867” is an ambiguous prefix of the complete and ambiguous query-words “48672225” and “48673734625” (which match “humpback” and “humperdinck,” respectively).
Preferred embodiments of the present invention address several usability problems. First, preferred embodiments allow users to press each key only once to enter a specific character, even if the key is associated with multiple characters (as on an overloaded keypad). Second, preferred embodiments permit users to type only a partial prefix of each search term. Finally, preferred embodiments allow for the progressive refinement of search queries in a context-sensitive way.
The techniques described herein provide methods for partially automated completion, disambiguation, and progressive refinement of search queries by using an iterative search-browse-select process. In most cases, this approach reduces the number of steps in reaching the desired result, by eliminating separate disambiguation and context-narrowing steps.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the query system maintains four entities in a computer-readable data structure. The search-query is a data structure that contains the contents of the query input box in the user interface. The clone-query is a secondary query storage structure that allows the restoration of previous queries after the primary search-query has been changed. Unlike the search-query, the contents of the clone-query are not directly displayed to the user; this data structure is maintained by the search system for internal use. The context-list is a data structure that contains information that is used to limit the search space from which the search system will retrieve results. Finally, the result-list is a data structure that holds the results that the system has determined are relevant to the user's query and query context. The manipulation and use of these four structures is described in greater detail below.
The search-query contains a set of query terms, which may be either direct-input query terms or locked query terms. Direct-input query terms are those query terms (that could be incomplete and/or ambiguous) that have been input by the user using the keypad. Locked query-words are query terms that have been placed into the search-query automatically as a result of a “lock” operation. Lock operations are described in greater detail below, but in general, a locked query term is a word that the user interface has put into the search-query in place of a user-entered ambiguous and/or incomplete query term portion. These locked query terms can come from metacontent associated with a particular search result returned by a search engine.
As described above, the techniques described herein may be used with devices that have overloaded keypads. In
At this point, the user may enter another character to further refine the search query [402] or navigate [405] to one of the displayed results [304]. When the user navigates to a displayed result, the result is highlighted, and the incomplete or ambiguous terms in the search-query are synchronized to the highlighted result. In the context of
Having navigated [405] to a search result, the user is presented with four options. First, if desired, the user may select the highlighted result [406]. In preferred embodiments, selecting the result might instruct the system to retrieve the associated document and open it using an appropriate application. For example, depending on the type of result selected, the system might retrieve and open it using a web-browser, a video player, a text reader, etc.
Second, the user may trigger a REVERT operation [403]. This option will cause the contents of the clone-query to be copied into the search-query, restoring it to its original state. Also, it will un-highlight the currently highlighted result and more the input focus back to the query input box. Thus, a REVERT operation returns the search interface to the state it was in before the user navigated to a specific search result [405].
Third, the user may trigger a LEXICAL LOCK operation [407]. The user may perform a LEXICAL LOCK in order to accept the synchronized search-query and launch a new query using the disambiguated terms. This option will cause the contents of the search-query to be copied into the clone-query. After this occurs, it is no longer possible to restore the initial, ambiguous search-query using a REVERT operation. As described above, navigating to the “Engelbert Humperdinck” result in
Fourth, the user may choose to trigger a CONCEPT LOCK operation [408]. A CONCEPT LOCK is intended to address situations in which metadata fails to sufficiently distinguish results that represent fundamentally different “concepts.” For example, the query terms “Engelbert Humperdinck” might refer to Engelbert Humperdinck the popular singer born in 1936, or they might refer to Engelbert Humperdinck the well-known composer of German Opera who lived in the 19th century. In this case, topical metadata may be unable to distinguish between these two possibilities, since both Engelbert Humperdincks would likely be indexed under terms like “Composer,” “Musician,” “Singing,” etc.
To overcome this problem, search results are manually associated with Global Identifiers (GIDs) that correspond to various “concepts.” These identifiers make it possible to distinguish between two separate concepts that happen to be associated with similar metadata. For example, Engelbert Humperdinck the singer might be associated with GID 500, while results about Engelbert Humperdinck the composer might have GID 510. Navigating to a result with GID 500 and triggering a CONCEPT LOCK will cause the selected GID (i.e. 500) to be stored in the context-list. Preferably, when launching a query, the system will pass the contents of the context-list to the search engine, thereby ensuring that only results related to GID 500 will be returned. Results about Engelbert Humperdinck the composer, though they may be associated with similar metadata, will not be included in the result-list because they are not associated with GID 500. The synchronization process and the LEXICAL LOCK and CONCEPT LOCK operations are further illustrated below.
Having navigated to the highlighted result [304], the user may enter more ambiguous characters [521]. This automatically moves the focus (i.e., the highlighted item) to the query input box, and the ambiguous characters “244” are added to the end of the search-query. This also performs an implicit LEXICAL LOCK on the query term “Engelbert Humperdinck.” The search system automatically launches the new search-query in the search engine and returns results that are related to the locked query term “Engelbert Humperdinck” and the ambiguous query term “244.” The state of the interface after this search is shown in Screen III [520]. At the end of each row, the system may optionally display the metadata matched by the ambiguous query term. For example, after the result “And I Love Him” [522], the word “cigarettes” appears in parentheses, indicating that this result was selected because it is associated with “cigarettes,” which matches the ambiguous query term “244.” Optionally, the portion of the metadata that matches the ambiguous query term may be set-off from the rest of the text. In Screen III [520], the matching portion of the metadata is underlined.
To fully disambiguate the search-query, the user may perform a LEXICAL LOCK operation. In the scenario shown in
For example, in
At this point, the user triggers a CONCEPT LOCK [611], which limits the query to concepts related to the selected result. As explained above, search terms may be associated with an arbitrary number of GIDs that correspond to various concepts. When the system performs a CONCEPT LOCK, the GIDs associated with the current result are added to the context-list. For example, performing a CONCEPT LOCK on “Hänsel und Gretel” might add the GID corresponding to the concept “Humperdinck the German Composer” to the context-list. By limiting future searches to this concept, the system is able to filter out unwanted search results about Engelbert Humperdinck the popular singer. CONCEPT LOCK operations may be performed explicitly (e.g., in response to the user pressing a button) or implicitly by the search system.
The database used to associate concept GIDs with search terms may be stored and maintained by either the search engine or the client device. If maintained by the search engine, the client device would submit the current context-list to the search engine together with the search-query. The search engine would then return only those results that are relevant to the concept GIDs contained in the context-list. Alternatively, the client device may maintain a database of GIDs in which each GID is associated with a set of pre-constructed queries. In this case, the client device will send these pre-constructed queries to the search engine along with the search-query in order to limit the search results.
It will be appreciated that the scope of the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, but rather is defined by the appended claims; and that these claims will encompass modifications of and improvements to what has been described.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/126,549, entitled System and Method for Text Disambiguation and Context Designation in Incremental Search, filed May 23, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,549,424, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/940,244, entitled System and Method for Text Disambiguation and Context Designation in Incremental Search, filed May 25, 2007, the contents of each of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1261167 | Russell | Apr 1918 | A |
4453217 | Boivie | Jun 1984 | A |
4760528 | Levin | Jul 1988 | A |
4797855 | Duncan, IV et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4893238 | Venema | Jan 1990 | A |
5224060 | Ma | Jun 1993 | A |
5337347 | Halstead-Nussloch et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5369605 | Parks | Nov 1994 | A |
5487616 | Ichbiah | Jan 1996 | A |
5532754 | Young et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5623406 | Ichbiah | Apr 1997 | A |
5635989 | Rothmuller | Jun 1997 | A |
5774588 | Li | Jun 1998 | A |
5805155 | Allibhoy et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5818437 | Grover et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828420 | Marshall et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828991 | Skiena et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835087 | Herz et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5859662 | Cragun et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5880768 | Lemmons et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5896444 | Perlman et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5912664 | Eick et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5930788 | Wical | Jul 1999 | A |
5937422 | Nelson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5945928 | Kushler et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5945987 | Dunn | Aug 1999 | A |
5953541 | King et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6005565 | Legall et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6005597 | Barrett et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6008799 | Van Kleeck | Dec 1999 | A |
6009459 | Belfiore et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6011554 | King et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6047300 | Walfish et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6075526 | Rothmuller | Jun 2000 | A |
6133909 | Schein et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6184877 | Dodson et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189002 | Roitblat | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6223059 | Haestrup | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6260050 | Yost et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266048 | Carau, Sr. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266814 | Lemmons et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269361 | Davis et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6286064 | King et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6307548 | Flinchem et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6307549 | King et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6360215 | Judd et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377945 | Risvik | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6383080 | Link et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6392640 | Will | May 2002 | B1 |
6438751 | Voyticky et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6463586 | Jerding | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466933 | Huang et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6529903 | Smith et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6543052 | Ogasawara | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564213 | Ortega et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6564313 | Kashyap | May 2003 | B1 |
6594657 | Livowsky et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6600496 | Wagner et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6614422 | Rafii et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6614455 | Cuijpers et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6615248 | Smith | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6622148 | Noble et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6664980 | Bryan et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6708336 | Bruette | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721954 | Nickum | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732369 | Leftwich et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6757906 | Look et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766526 | Ellis | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772147 | Wang | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785671 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801909 | Delgado et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6835602 | Norskov et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6839702 | Patel et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6839705 | Grooters | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850693 | Young et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865575 | Smith | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6865746 | Herrington et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6907273 | Smethers | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6965374 | Villet et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6999959 | Lawrence et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7013304 | Schuetze et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7117207 | Kerschberg et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7136854 | Smith | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7149983 | Robertson et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7213256 | Kikinis | May 2007 | B1 |
7225180 | Donaldson et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225184 | Carrasco et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225455 | Bennington et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7269548 | Fux et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7293231 | Gunn et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7461061 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7509313 | Colledge et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7529744 | Srivastava et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7536384 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7539676 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7548915 | Ramer et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7644054 | Garg et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657526 | Aravamudan et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7779011 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7788266 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
20020002550 | Berman | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020042791 | Smith et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049752 | Bowman et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052873 | Delgado et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059066 | O'Hagan | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059621 | Thomas et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020077143 | Sharif et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083448 | Johnson | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020133481 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020184373 | Maes | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188488 | Hinkle | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199194 | Ali | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005452 | Rodriguez | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030005462 | Broadus et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030011573 | Villet et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014753 | Beach et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023976 | Kamen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033292 | Meisel et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037043 | Chang et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046698 | Kamen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030066079 | Suga | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030067495 | Pu et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084270 | Coon et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097661 | Li et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030226146 | Thurston et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237096 | Barrett et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040021691 | Dostie et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040046744 | Rafii et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040049783 | Lemmons et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073432 | Stone | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073926 | Nakamura et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078815 | Lemmons et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078816 | Johnson | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078820 | Nickum | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083198 | Bradford et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040093616 | Johnson | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111745 | Schein et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128686 | Boyer et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040139091 | Shin | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143569 | Gross et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040194141 | Sanders | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040216160 | Lemmons et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220926 | Lamkin et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040221308 | Cuttner et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040261021 | Mittal et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015366 | Carrasco et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050038702 | Merriman et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050071874 | Elcock et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050079895 | Kalenius et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086234 | Tosey | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086691 | Dudkiewicz et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086692 | Dudkiewicz et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050129199 | Abe | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050174333 | Robinson et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050192944 | Flinchem | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210020 | Gunn et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210383 | Cucerzan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210402 | Gunn et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223308 | Gunn et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240580 | Zamir et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246311 | Whelan et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050246324 | Paalasmaa et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278175 | Hyvonen | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283468 | Kamvar et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010477 | Yu | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013487 | Longe et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015906 | Boyer et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036640 | Tateno et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060044277 | Fux et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059044 | Chan et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069616 | Bau | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075429 | Istvan et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060090182 | Horowitz et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060090185 | Zito et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060098899 | King et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101499 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101503 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101504 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112162 | Marot et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060136379 | Marino et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060156233 | Nurmi | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161520 | Brewer et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060163337 | Unruh | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167676 | Plumb | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167859 | Verbeck Sibley et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060190308 | Janssens et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195435 | Laird-McConnell et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206454 | Forstall et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060242607 | Hudson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248078 | Gross et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060256078 | Flinchem et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259479 | Dai | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060274051 | Longe et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005563 | Aravamudan et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016476 | Hoffberg et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070027852 | Howard et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043750 | Dingle | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050337 | Venkataraman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050348 | Aharoni et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061244 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061317 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061321 | Venkataraman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061754 | Ardhanari et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088681 | Aravamudan et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070130128 | Garg et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143567 | Gorobets | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150606 | Flinchem et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070182595 | Ghasabian | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070219984 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219985 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070255693 | Ramaswamy et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070260703 | Ardhanari et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266021 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266026 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070266406 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271205 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276773 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276821 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276859 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070288457 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080065617 | Burke et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080071771 | Venkataraman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077577 | Byrne et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080086704 | Aravamudan | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080114743 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080177717 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209229 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080313564 | Barve et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090077496 | Aravamudan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090198688 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100121845 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153380 | Garg et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
181058 | May 1986 | EP |
1050794 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1143691 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1338967 | Aug 2003 | EP |
1463307 | Sep 2004 | EP |
1622054 | Feb 2006 | EP |
WO-9856173 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-0070505 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO-2004010326 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO-2004031931 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO-2005033967 | Apr 2005 | WO |
WO-2005084235 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO-2006052959 | May 2006 | WO |
WO-2006052966 | May 2006 | WO |
WO-2007025148 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO-2007025149 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO-2007062035 | May 2007 | WO |
WO-2007118038 | Oct 2007 | WO |
WO-2007124429 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO-2007124436 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO-2007131058 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO-2008034057 | Mar 2008 | WO |
WO-2008091941 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO-2008148012 | Dec 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ardissono, L. et al., User Modeling and Recommendation Techniques for Personalized Electronic Program Guides, Personalized Digital Television, Editors: Ardissono, et al., Kluwer Academic Press, 2004 (27 pgs.) |
Dalianis, “Improving search engine retrieval using a compound splitter for Swedish,” Abstract of presentation at Nodalida 2005—15th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, Joensuu Finland, May 21-22, 2005. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2006 from http://phon.joensuu.fi/nodalida/abstracts/03.shtml (3 pgs.) |
Digital Video Broadcasting, http://www.dvb.org (Oct. 12, 2007) (2 pgs.) |
European Supplemental Search Report for PCT/US2005040415, dated Aug. 11, 2009 (15 pgs.) |
Gadd, Phonix: The Algorith, Program, vol. 24(4), Oct. 1990 (pp. 363-369). |
Good, N. et al., Combining Collaborative Filtering with Personal Agents for Better Recommendations, in Proc. of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 439-446, Orlando, Florida, Jul. 18-22, 1999. |
International Search and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (8 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2005/040415, dated Nov. 27, 2006 (6 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/025249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (8 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/033204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (8 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/033257, dated Mar. 26, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/033258, dated Mar. 26, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/045053, dated Jul. 24, 2008 (8 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (8 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/067100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/067114, dated Jul. 2, 2008 (4 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/068064, dated Jul. 7, 2008 (9 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/078490, dated Jul. 4, 2008 (4 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2008/051789, dated Jul. 14, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2008/064730, dated Sep. 8, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for PCT/US2005/40424, mailing date of Nov. 21, 2006 (6 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (5 pgs.) |
Mackenzie et al., LetterWise: Prefix-based disambiguation for mobile text input, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology—UIST2001, pp. 111-120. |
Matthom, “Text Highlighting in Search Results”, Jul. 22, 2005. Available at www.matthom.com/archive/2005/07/22/text-highlighting-in-search-results; retrieved Jun. 23, 2006 (4 pgs.) |
Mokotoff, Soundexing and Genealogy, Available at http://www.avotaynu.com/soundex.html, retrieved Mar. 19, 2008, last updated Sep. 8, 2007 (6 pgs.) |
Nardi, et al., “Integrating Communication and Information Through Contact Map,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, No. 4, Apr. 2002, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+505251 (7 pgs.) |
Press Release from Tegic Communications, Tegic Communications is awarded patent for Japanese T9(R) text input software from the Japan Patent Office, Oct. 12, 2004. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2005 from http://www.tegic.com/press—view.html?release—num=55254242 (4 pgs.). |
Review of Personalization Technologies: Collaborative Filtering vs. ChoiceStream's Attributized Bayesian Choice Modeling, Technology Brief, ChoiceStream Technologies, Cambridge, MA, Feb. 2004 (13 pgs.) |
Roe, et al., “Mapping UML Models Incorporating OCL Constraints into Object-Z,” Technical Report, Sep. 2003, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, retrieved on Jul. 12, 2007, retrieved from the internet: <URL: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/-ar3/TechnicalReport2003—9.pdf>, (17 pgs.) |
Silfverberg et al., Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing System—Chi, 2000. pp. 1-16. |
Supplemental European Search Report for 06838179.7 dated Dec. 9, 2009 (7 pgs.) |
Supplemental European Search Report for EP07761026.9 dated Jan. 28, 2010 (8 pgs.) |
Supplemental European Search Report for PCT/US2005040424, dated Aug. 20, 2009 (13 pgs.) |
Supplementary European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP07842499, dated Aug. 25, 2010 (6 pgs.) |
Talbot, David. “Soul of a New Mobile Machine.” Technology Review: The Design Issue May/Jun. 2007. (pp. 46-53). |
Turski, et al., “Inner Circle—People Centered Email Client,” CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sysems, Apr. 2005, pp. 1845-1848, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+1056808.1057037 (4 pgs.) |
Wikipedia's entry for Levenshtein distance (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 15, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein—distance (9 pgs.) |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140032534 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60940244 | May 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12126549 | May 2008 | US |
Child | 14039395 | US |