System and method for text disambiguation and context designation in incremental search

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8549424
  • Patent Number
    8,549,424
  • Date Filed
    Friday, May 23, 2008
    16 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    10 years ago
Abstract
Methods and systems for text disambiguation and context designation in incremental search are provided. A method for selecting items in response to ambiguous keystrokes entered by a user and unambiguous metadata associated with a previously selected search result includes receiving ambiguous keystrokes, selecting and presenting a first subset of items and metadata associated with the items presented based on the ambiguous keystrokes. The method also includes receiving a selection of one of the 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 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 metadata term, and presenting the second subset of items.
Description
BACKGROUND

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).


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

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:



FIG. 1 is a network diagram that illustrates the various components of a search system, according to certain embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram that depicts the various components of a user device, according to certain embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 3 is a user-interface diagram that depicts the various components of the search interface, according to certain embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart that illustrates the operation of a search system, according to certain embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 5 is a user interface diagram that illustrates the operation of the navigation, synchronization, and LEXICAL LOCK features, according to certain embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 6 is a user interface diagram that illustrates the operation of the CONCEPT LOCK feature, according to certain embodiments of the invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

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.



FIG. 1 illustrates the various components of a search system, according to certain embodiments of the invention. A server farm [100] serves as a source of search data and relevance updates with a network [105] functioning as the distribution framework. The distribution framework might be a cable television network, a satellite television network, an IP-based network, or any other type of widely-used networking framework. It may be a wired network or a wireless network, or a hybrid network that uses both of these communication technologies. The search devices are preferably hand-held devices with limited display and input capabilities, such as a hand-held PDA [101], a remote control [115b] that interfaces with a television [115a], or any other input- and output-constrained mobile device (e.g., a cellular phone).



FIG. 2 is a diagram that depicts the various components of a user device, according to certain embodiments of the invention. The user device communicates with the user via a display [201] and a keypad [204]. This keypad may be an overloaded keypad that produces ambiguous text input. Computation is performed using a processor [202] that stores temporary information in a volatile memory store and persistent data in a persistent memory store [206]. Either or both of these memory stores may hold the computer instructions for the processor to perform the logic described herein. The device is operable to connect to a remote system using a remote connectivity module [205].



FIG. 3 is a user-interface diagram that depicts the various components of the search interface, according to certain embodiments of the invention. Box [300] represents the screen of the user device. At the top of the screen is the query input box [301]. As described above, the query input box displays the current contents of the search-query data structure. In FIG. 3, the search-query consists of the ambiguous query term corresponding to the keystrokes “36435” on an overloaded telephone-style keypad, where each number key is associated with multiple characters. The portion [302] of the screen below the query input box [301] is used to display the contents of the result-list. If the result-list is empty, no results are displayed. Otherwise, this portion of the screen [302] is subdivided into rows [303], each of which displays information about a particular search result. In addition to the title of the result, this information may include metadata relevant to the result. In fact, the title of the result is itself only one example of metadata relevant to the result. For example, in FIG. 3 the words “(Music/Multimedia)” appear next to “Engel” in order to provide additional context to the user. The user may use a keyboard navigation interface to browse through the result-list. When the user navigates to a particular row, that row is highlighted. When none of the rows are selected, the query input box is highlighted (illustrated in FIG. 3 as a shaded background with white text [301]).


As described above, the techniques described herein may be used with devices that have overloaded keypads. In FIG. 3, the ambiguous and incomplete search term “36435” has been entered using an overloaded numeric telephone keypad. Using the techniques described in the patent applications referenced above, the system may automatically generate various completions and disambiguations of the search query. In this example, both “engel” and “fogel” are selected as possible disambiguations of “36435,” and the set of suggested completions includes “Fogelburg,” “Engelbert,” and “Engelke,” among others. The portion of the suggested completion that matches the ambiguous query term is here shown in boldface and underlined.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart that illustrates the operation of a search system, according to certain embodiments of the invention. When the system is initialized, the search-query, the clone-query, the result-list, and the context-list are empty [401]. Although not shown in FIG. 4, the search interface optionally provides a means for the user to return to this initial state at any time during the search process. At this point, the system waits for the user to begin searching by entering [402] a character into the query input box [301]. After the user enters a character, it is added to the search-query. If the rightmost query term in the search-query is a direct-input query term, the character is appended to this query term. The user may begin entering a new direct-input query term by inserting a space (or any other appropriate delimiter). Following the user's character entry, the new search-query is optionally submitted to the search engine [404], without requiring the user to explicitly launch the query. At this point, the contents of the search-query are copied to the clone-query, and the results of the search are displayed [404].


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 FIG. 3, the user's navigating to the “Engelbert Humperdinck” result [304] would cause the search query to change from “36435” to “Engelbert Humperdinck.” Only the search-query is synchronized to the highlighted result; the clone-query remains unchanged. If the user navigates to a different result, the search-query is restored from the contents of the clone-query and re-synchronized to the newly highlighted result. The process of synchronization is described in more detail below.


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 FIG. 3 [304] would cause the search-query to synchronize to “Engelbert Humperdinck.” If, at this point, the user were to trigger a LEXICAL LOCK operation, a new search for the unambiguous term “Engelbert Humperdinck” would be performed, eliminating disambiguations like “Engel” and partial matches like “Fogelburg.” The LEXICAL LOCK operation is further described below.


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.



FIG. 5 is a user interface diagram that illustrates the operation of the navigation, synchronization, and LEXICAL LOCK features described above. Screen I [300] shows the search interface as it appeared in FIG. 3. The user may then use the device's keypad to navigate [501] to the “Engelbert Humperdinck” result. As shown in Screen II [510], this result is highlighted [304], and the search-query (displayed in the query input box [301]) is synchronized to “Engelbert Humperdinck.” During the synchronization process, each direct-input query term in the search-query that matches a complete and unambiguous term (or phrase, such as “Engelbert Humperdinck”) in the highlighted result's metacontent is removed and the corresponding complete and unambiguous term (or phrase) is put in place of the corresponding direct-input query term as a locked query term. Thus, because “Engelbert Humperdinck” matches “36435,” the direct-input query term “36435” is replaced by the locked query term “Engelbert Humperdinck” in the search-query.


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 FIG. 5, the user navigates to the “What a Wonderful World” result and triggers a LEXICAL LOCK [521]. As described above, navigating to the “What a Wonderful World” result causes the search-query to synchronize its direct-input query terms to the corresponding locked query terms. In this case, the direct-input term “244” is synchronized to “biggest.” The LEXICAL LOCK operation makes this change permanent, fully disambiguating the search-query, as shown in Screen IV [530].



FIG. 6 is a user interface diagram that illustrates the operation of the CONCEPT LOCK feature. Screen III [520] (identical to Screen III in FIG. 5) lists results that are relevant to the locked query term “Engelbert Humperdinck” and the direct-input term “244.” This listing includes terms that are relevant to Humperdinck the popular singer (e.g. “What a Wonderful World” [523], the title of a song performed by Humperdinck) and also terms that are relevant to Humperdinck the German composer (e.g., “Hänsel und Gretel” [611], the name of his most famous opera). As explained above, it is difficult to distinguish between these two concepts using metadata alone. This type of distinction is facilitated by the CONCEPT LOCK operation.


For example, in FIG. 6, suppose the user is searching for results related to Humperdinck the composer and not Humperdinck the singer. In order to narrow the scope of the search to the composer, the user would first navigate to a search result related to the desired concept [601]. In this case, the user selects the result titled “Hänsel und Gretel” [611]. Screen IVa [610] depicts the state of the interface after the user has navigated to this result.


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.

Claims
  • 1. A user-interface method for selecting a subset of items from a collection of items in response to search criteria including keystrokes entered by a user from a keypad with overloaded keys and including unambiguous metadata associated with a previously selected search result, the method comprising: a. receiving a sequence of keystrokes entered by a user, each keystroke of the sequence associated with an overloaded key of a keypad, in which a given overloaded key is in fixed association with a plurality of alphabetical and numerical symbols, wherein the user is using the symbols to search for desired items and each keystroke of an overloaded key of the sequence represents any of the plurality of alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with that overloaded key;b. in response to receiving the keystrokes, performing a first search operation on the collection of items based on the sequence of keystrokes to retrieve a first subset of items from the collection of items and corresponding unambiguous metadata associated with the first subset of items, wherein the unambiguous metadata associated with each item of the first subset of items matches a permutation of the pluralities of alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with each overloaded key associated with each keystroke of the sequence of keystrokes;c. presenting on a display device the first subset of items;d. receiving a selection of one of the items of the first subset of items from the user;e. in response to a locking operation received from the user, performing a second search operation on the collection of items based on at least a portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with the selected item to retrieve a second subset of items from the collection of items, wherein at least a portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with each item of the second subset of items matches the portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with the selected item; andf. presenting on the display device the second subset of items.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the unambiguous metadata term associated with the selected item lexically disambiguates the items of the first subset from each other for the subsequent searching and presenting steps.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the unambiguous metadata term associated with the selected item is a metadata term describing a concept associated with the selected item of the first subset so that only items associated with the concept of the selected item are selected and presented in the subsequent searching and presenting steps.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a browse action from the user for highlighting one of the presented items of the first subset; and, in response to the user browse action, transforming at least part of the keystrokes into at least one unambiguous metadata term associated with the highlighted item, wherein at least some of the characters of the unambiguous metadata term match the alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with the keystrokes entered by the user.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, wherein 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 and wherein receiving a locking operation from the user includes receiving at least one additional keystroke entry from the user.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user is a keystroke for performing an explicit lock operation.
  • 7. The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user includes additional keystrokes entered by the user for providing additional alphabetical or numerical symbols for searching for desired items.
  • 8. A user-interface system for selecting a subset of items from a collection of items in response to search criteria including keystrokes entered by a user from a keypad with overloaded keys and including unambiguous metadata associated with a previously selected search result, the system comprising instructions encoded on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and when executed operable to: a. receive a sequence of keystrokes entered by a user, each keystroke of the sequence associated with an overloaded key of a keypad, in which a given overloaded key is in fixed association with a plurality of alphabetical and numerical symbols, wherein the user is using the symbols to search for desired items and each keystrokes of an overloaded key of the sequence represents any of the plurality of alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed associated with that overloaded key;b. in response to receiving the keystrokes, perform a first search operation on the collection of items based on the sequence of keystrokes to retrieve a first subset of items from the collection of items and corresponding unambiguous metadata associated with the first subset of items, wherein the unambiguous metadata associated with each item of the first subset of items matches a permutation of the pluralities of alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with each overloaded key associated with each keystroke of the sequence of keystrokes;c. present on a display device the first subset of items;d. receive a selection of one of the items of the first subset of items from the user;e. in response to a locking operation received from the user, perform a second search operation on the collection of items based on at least a portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with the selected item to retrieve second subset of items from the collection of items, wherein at least a portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with each item of the second subset of items matches the portion of the unambiguous metadata associated with the selected item; andf. present on the display device the second subset of items.
  • 9. The system of claim 8, wherein the unambiguous metadata term associated with the selected item lexically disambiguates the items of the first subset from each other for the subsequent searching and presenting steps.
  • 10. The system of claim 8, wherein the unambiguous metadata term associated with the selected item is a metadata term describing a concept associated with the selected item of the first subset so that only items associated with the concept of the selected item are selected and presented in the subsequent searching and presenting steps.
  • 11. The system of claim 8, further comprising instructions operable to receive a browse action from the user for highlighting one of the presented items of the first subset; and instructions operable to, in response to the user browse action, transform at least part of the keystrokes into at least one unambiguous metadata term associated with the highlighted item, wherein at least some of the characters of the unambiguous metadata term match the alphabetical and numerical symbols in fixed association with the keystrokes entered by the user.
  • 12. The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions operable to receive a selection of one of the items of the first subset of items is further operable to receive a browse action from the user for highlighting one of the presented items of the first subset and wherein the instructions operable to receive a locking operation from the user is further operable to receive at least one additional keystroke entry from the user.
  • 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user is a keystroke for performing an explicit lock operation.
  • 14. The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one additional keystroke entry from the user includes additional keystrokes entered by the user for providing additional alphabetical or numerical symbols for searching for desired items.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of the following application, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,244, entitled System and Method for Text Disambiguation and Context Designation in Incremental Search, filed May 25, 2007.

US Referenced Citations (250)
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 et al. 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
6204848 Nowlan et al. Mar 2001 B1
6223059 Haestrupet al. 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 et al. 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
6734881 Will 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 et al. 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
7679534 Kay et al. Mar 2010 B2
7683886 Willey Mar 2010 B2
7712053 Bradford et al. May 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 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
20060176283 Suraqui Aug 2006 A1
20060190308 Janssens et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060195435 Laird-McConnell et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060206454 Forstall et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060206815 Pathiyal 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 Jan 2007 A1
20070016476 Hoffberg et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016862 Kuzmin 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 Mar 2007 A1
20070061753 Ng et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070061754 Ardhanari et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070074131 Assadollahi Mar 2007 A1
20070088681 Aravamudan et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070094024 Kristensson et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070130128 Garg et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070136689 Richardson-Bunbury 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
20070226649 Agmon Sep 2007 A1
20070240044 Fux et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070240045 Fux et al. Oct 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
20080010611 Fux et al. Jan 2008 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
Foreign Referenced Citations (24)
Number Date Country
1050794 Nov 2000 EA
181058 May 1986 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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (42)
Entry
European Supplemental Search Report for PCT/US2005040415, dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages.
Supplemental European Search Report for PCT/US2005040424, dated Aug. 20, 2009, 13 pages.
Nardi, et al., “Integrating Communication and Information Through Contact Map,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, No. 4, Apr. 2002, 7 pages, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+505251.
Supplemental European Search Report for 06838179.7 dated Dec. 9, 2009, 7 pages.
Supplemental European Search Report for EP07761026.9 dated Jan. 28, 2010, 8 pages.
Turski, et al., “Inner Circle—People Centered Email Client,” CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sysems, Apr. 2005, pp. 1845-1848, 4 pages, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+1056808.1057037.
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 pages).
Mokotoff, Soundexing and Genealogy, Available at http://www.avotaynu.com/soundex.html, retrieved Mar. 19, 2008, last updated Sep. 8, 2007 (6 pages).
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.
Review of Personalization Technologies: Collaborative Filtering vs. ChoiceStream's Attributized Bayesian Choice Modeling, Technology Brief, ChoiceStream Technologies, Cambridge, MA.
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.
Talbot, David. “Soul of a New Mobile Machine.” Technology Review: The Design Issue May/Jun. 2007. (pp. 46-53).
Wikipedia's entry for Levenshtein distance (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 15, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein—distance.
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/25249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (4 pages).
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/33204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (3 pages).
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, 4 pages.
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 pages.
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 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/33258, dated Mar. 26, 2008, 5 pages.
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 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/068064, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/078490, 4 pages.
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 pages.
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 pages.
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 pages.
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 pages.
Supplementary European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP07842499, dated Aug. 25, 2010, 6 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/939,086, Ramakrishnan et al.
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.
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.
Digital Video Broadcasting, http://www.dvb.org (Oct. 12, 2007).
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 Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/25249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (2 pages).
International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/33204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (2 pages).
International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (4 Pages).
International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (2 pages).
International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (2 pages).
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (4 Pages).
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (4 pages).
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (3 pages).
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20080313564 A1 Dec 2008 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60940244 May 2007 US