The present disclosure relates generally to Internet technology, and more particularly, to electronic mail (email) technology.
The importance of email technology in society today is well known. Email applications have become a common tool in both business and personal communication. A significant factor in the widespread adoption of email technology is the relative ease with which individuals may communicate using email. An individual may quickly communicate a message to one or more individuals by simply inputting the message and the recipients' email address into an email application and clicking a mouse button. One of the primary reasons email is so attractive is that the messages are typically delivered within seconds of being sent.
Many email users access their email through web mail applications which display a user's email inbox and the corresponding email messages in a web page environment. One of the advantages of web mail applications is that the user may access their email from any location that provides access to the World Wide Web. When a user logs into their email account, they are typically presented with an inbox view that provides a list of the various email messages the user has received. When the user selects a particular email message, for example, by clicking on the message within the list, a request is sent to a web server requesting the selected message. The server responds with the email message which is displayed to the user as a new web page.
Typically, the web page displaying the message includes one or more reply options. Examples of response options include Reply, Reply-to-All and Forward. These response options are usually presented to the user as links or buttons that the user may select. Reply allows the user to reply to the originator of the message. Reply-to-All allows the user to reply to all of the recipients of the message. The Forward option allows the user to forward the email to a user who was not one of the original recipients of the message.
When a user selects one of the response options in a web based email application, a request is sent to a remote email server requesting the reply web page corresponding to the selected response option. This page typically includes a text box for inputting the reply message and one or more address fields for inserting the recipient addresses. When the user selects the Reply or Reply-to-All option, the server typically inserts the appropriate recipient address information into the address fields.
Typically, a user must choose the response option at the time he decides to respond to the email. If the user later changes his mind and wants to select a different response option, he cannot do so from the reply web page returned by the server. In order to select a different response option, the user would have to return to the original message web page. This process may result in multiple requests to the server which increases web traffic and adds additional latency to the user experience. If the user provides part or all of a response message into the reply web page before changing his mind on the response options, the user would lose the message unless he copied the message before returning to the original message and pasted it into the new reply web page returned by the server upon selecting the new response option.
These same limitations are also present in client-side email applications such as Microsoft Outlook. When the user selects a particular response option, a new message window is created including the recipient addresses associated with the response option. However, if the user wishes to change to a different response option, the user must close the window and select a different response option. These applications do not provide the user with a mechanism to dynamically change the response option for his message. As a result, if the user has provided part or all of a message prior to deciding to select a different response option, the user must either copy the message and paste it into the new reply window, or must manually enter the additional recipient addresses.
Accordingly, what is desirable are improved systems and methods for addressing the above-described limitations of prior systems.
The present disclosure provides a system, a graphical user interface, and a method for dynamically updating the recipient email addresses of a response message in response to a user selection of a response option.
In some embodiments, a method includes: at a computer: maintaining display of a reply message associated with a plurality of response options, where each response option in the plurality of response options is associated with one or more recipient addresses for the reply message. While maintaining the display of at least a portion of the reply message, at least one recipient address for the reply message is updated in accordance with a selected response option.
In some embodiments, maintaining the display of at least a portion of the reply message includes maintaining display of at least a portion of a message body of the reply message. In some embodiments, the selected response option is one of: reply, reply to all, and forward. In some embodiments, the at least one recipient address is updated without requesting a new reply form. In some embodiments, the reply message and the at least one recipient address are displayed in a first reply form.
In some embodiments, the method further includes displaying a tear-off mechanism and, responsive to a user selection of the tear-off mechanism, displaying a second reply form separately from the first reply form. This second reply form includes the plurality of response options and a portion of the reply message. In some embodiments, the second reply form further includes an option to edit the at least one recipient address for the reply message.
For a better understanding of the aforementioned aspects of the present disclosure as well as additional aspects and embodiments thereof, reference should be made to the Description of Embodiments below, in conjunction with the following drawings in which like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout the figures.
An apparatus and method for dynamically updating at least one email transmission characteristic of a reply form without modifying the text message within the reply form is described. Email transmission characteristics include but are not limited to the recipient addresses of the response message, security parameters, quality of service characteristics or the priority level assigned to the response message. One skilled in the art will recognize that there are a number of email transmission characteristics that may be modified according to the present disclosure.
In one embodiment, the recipient addresses of a response message may be dynamically updated in response to a user selection of one of a plurality of response options. In one embodiment, a reply form associated with a received email message may be displayed to a user. The reply form may include multiple response options, a text box for inputting the response message and one or more address fields for adding and or editing the email addresses of the intended recipients of the response message. In response to a user selection of a response option, the recipient addresses of the response message may be dynamically populated based upon the selected response option.
In the following description, for purposes of explanation, specific details are set forth in order to provide an understanding of the present disclosure. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art that the present disclosure can be practiced without these details. Furthermore, one skilled in the art will recognize that embodiments of the present disclosure, exemplary ones of which are described below, may be utilized in any electronic mail application. Accordingly, structures and devices shown below in block diagram are illustrative of specific embodiments of the present disclosure and are meant to avoid obscuring the present disclosure.
Reference in the specification to “one embodiment,” “this embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, characteristic, or function described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment disclosed in the present disclosure. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.
In one embodiment, email message 210 is the message the user is responding to using reply form 200. As illustrated in
Reply form 200 may be generated to allow the user to respond to email message 210 and may be displayed in the same window or document (e.g. web page) as email message 210. In an alternative embodiment, reply form 200 may be displayed in a separate window or frame from email address 210. In one embodiment, illustrated in
In the embodiment illustrated in
Software located on the client computer may also provide a more efficient email response mechanism for the user by allowing the user to toggle through the virtual tabs while maintaining content within the text box 220. For example, the user may initially select the Reply tab 260 and enter a response to the email message 210 within the text box 220. Thereafter, the user may toggle from the Reply tab 260 to the Reply-to-All tab 270. The content within the text box 220 may remain after this toggle without any user action. According to one embodiment, software on the client computer modifies the characteristics of the email response (i.e., changes from Reply response to Reply-to-All response) without erasing or modifying the content with the email response.
In the example illustrated in
In one embodiment, Reply option 260 may be defined to reply to the sender of the original email message 210. In the embodiment illustrated in
In one embodiment, the user may input a response message in text box 220 by clicking text box 220 and inputting the text through a keyboard or other input device.
As mentioned above, the user may toggle between the various response options in order to change the recipient addresses for the response message. For example, if the user wishes to send the message to Tim, Greg and Brad, the user may select the Reply-to-All option 270 within reply form 200. In one embodiment, Reply-to-All option 270 is defined to send the response message to all of the recipients of email message 210.
When the user selects Reply-to-All option 270, software code may detect the selection and dynamically update address boxes 240 and 250 to include the email addresses of the recipients associated with the selected response option. In this example, the software code may populate recipient address box 240 with Tim@example.com and may populate address box 250 with Greg@example.com and Brad@example.com. Each of these email addresses is associated with the Reply-to-All 270 option since it is defined to respond to each recipient of email message 210. In one embodiment, the software code may be embedded within the source code that defines reply form 200. In an alternative embodiment, the software code may be embedded within a hidden frame or second window (not shown in
The software code may be configured to monitor and/or receive data regarding user selections within reply form 200. In one embodiment, the software code may parse email message 210 to identify the various recipient email addresses. Based on the location within the email message 210 header, the software code may identify which email addresses to associate with each response option. For example, while parsing email message 210, the software code may identify email addresses located in the “Cc:” field and may assign these addresses to the Reply-to-All option 270. As a result, when a user selects Reply-to-All 270, the software code may populate recipient address box 250 of reply form 200 with the recipient email addresses parsed from the “Cc:” field of email message 210.
In another embodiment, while parsing email message 210, the software code may identify the email addresses located in the “From:” field of email message 210. The software code may associate these email addresses with the Reply 260 and Reply-to-All 270 options. The “From:” field email addresses may be associated with each response option since both are defined to respond to the sender of the original email message 210. As a result, when the user selects either of these response options, the software code may populate recipient text box 240 of reply form 200 with the email addresses parsed from the “From:” field of email message 210.
One skilled in the art will recognize that there are a number of ways to implement the software code described above. In one embodiment, JavaScript or another scripting language may be used to implement the present disclosure. In one embodiment, the software code may be embedded within the source code that defines reply form 200. In an alternative embodiment, the software code may be embedded within a hidden frame or second window.
In one embodiment of the present disclosure illustrated in
In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the user may click or otherwise select Send button 290 to send the message input to reply form 200 to the recipients specified in address boxes 240 and 250. In one embodiment, software code may detect the user selection of the send button and initiate the transfer of the message to a remote server for delivery to the specified recipients. In one embodiment, the software code may be embedded within the source code that defines reply form 200. In an alternative embodiment, the software code may be embedded within a hidden frame or second window. In one embodiment, the message may be sent without navigating the user to another web page. In other words, during the process of toggling between response options and sending the message, the same reply form 200 may be displayed to the user.
In one embodiment of the present disclosure, a confirmation message indicating that the message has been sent may be inserted in place of the reply form when the message has been sent. In another embodiment, the software code may be configured to remove the contents of text box 220 after the user has clicked on the send button and the message delivery has been initiated. As illustrated in
One skilled in the art will recognize that the present disclosure is not limited to virtual tabs and that there are a number of other ways to display response options 260, 270 and 280 to a user, including but not limited to links and buttons. In one embodiment, illustrated in
In one embodiment, response button 410 may represent the reply option. When the user selects response button 410, software code may initiate the sending of the message input into text box 220 to the sender of the original message 210. In this example, Tim@example.com. Response button 420 may represent the reply-to-all option. When the user selects response button 420, software code may initiate the sending of the message input into text box 220 to all of the recipients of the original message 210. In this example, the message would be sent to Tim@example.com, Brad@example.com and Greg@example.com.
In yet another embodiment, when the user selects the Edit Recipients response button 430, software code may dynamically insert the To: and Cc: address boxes 240 and 250 into reply form 400 along with a Send button as illustrated in
Similarly, when the user selects the Forward response button 440, software code may insert the To: and Cc: address boxes 240 and 250 into reply form 200 along with a Send button as illustrated in
In another embodiment, when a user selects reply link 525 a reply form 200 is inserted below email message 520 as illustrated in
In a further embodiment of the present disclosure, a reply link may be provided for each response option supported. For example, a reply link may be provided for Reply 260 option, Reply-to-All 270 option and Forward 280 option. When the user selects one of the response options, a reply form 200 may be dynamically inserted below the email message associated with the reply link. Software code may populate address boxes 240 and 250 based on the selected response option. In addition, the user may still toggle between the response options within reply form 200 as described above.
In an alternative embodiment, the reply links located below each email message within email thread 500 may be replaced with minimized reply forms 215 illustrated in
In one embodiment of the present disclosure illustrated in
In step 720, a plurality of response options may be provided to the user. The response options may be part of the reply form or may in some way be associated with the reply form. In one embodiment, the response options include the Reply option, the Reply-to-All option, and the Forward option. There are a number of ways in which the response options may be presented to the user, including presenting the response options as virtual tabs, links and or buttons. Each response option may be associated with a subset of the recipients of the email message to which the user is responding.
In step 730, a user selection of one of the plurality of response options may be detected. In one embodiment, software code detects the selection of one of the response options. The software code may determine which recipient addresses are associated with the selected response option. In one embodiment, the first email message may be parsed to locate the various recipients and sender of the first email message. These email addresses may be associated with various response options.
In step 740, the recipient addresses of the response message are updated in response to the selected response option. In one embodiment, software code may dynamically update or replace the recipient email addresses of the reply form with the recipient addresses associated with the selected response option. This may consist of removing email addresses from the reply form that are not associated with the selected response option. This may also consist of populating the reply form with recipient email addresses that are associated with the selected response option.
While the present disclosure has been described with reference to certain embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that various modifications may be provided. For example, though the present disclosure has been discussed with reference to various response options, one skilled in the art will recognize that the present disclosure is not limited to these response options. Other response options may be defined that are part of the present disclosure. In addition, there are numerous programming languages, including JavaScript, which may be used to implement the disclosure. Variations upon and modifications to the embodiments are provided for by the present disclosure, which is limited only by the following claims.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/221,825, filed Aug. 30, 2011, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/961,911, filed Dec. 20, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,010,599, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/522,549, filed Sep. 13, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,315,880, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/815,284, filed Mar. 31, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,621. All above-referenced U.S. Patent Applications and Patents are hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5208748 | Flores et al. | May 1993 | A |
5216603 | Flores et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5479408 | Will | Dec 1995 | A |
5613108 | Morikawa | Mar 1997 | A |
5724571 | Woods | Mar 1998 | A |
5734837 | Flores et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5740549 | Reilly et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5761689 | Rayson et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5832502 | Durham et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5872925 | Han | Feb 1999 | A |
5905863 | Knowles et al. | May 1999 | A |
5913040 | Rakavy et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5948058 | Kudoh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5959621 | Nawaz et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6021427 | Spagna et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029164 | Birrell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029195 | Herz | Feb 2000 | A |
6085206 | Domini et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6151596 | Hosomi | Nov 2000 | A |
6182063 | Woods | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182098 | Selker | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185551 | Birrell et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6330589 | Kennedy | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6350066 | Bobo, II | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6396513 | Helfman et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408297 | Ohashi | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421694 | Nawaz et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6438564 | Morton et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6493702 | Adar et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6493703 | Knight et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507351 | Bixler | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6549957 | Hanson et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6594658 | Woods | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594693 | Borwankar | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606644 | Ford et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615241 | Miller et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6640239 | Gidwani | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6665668 | Sugaya et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6683627 | Ullmann et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6708205 | Sheldon et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6725228 | Clark et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6742042 | Holden et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6745197 | McDonald | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757889 | Ito | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6771291 | DiStefano, III | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785869 | Berstis | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6820081 | Kawai et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6826596 | Suzuki | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6834276 | Jensen et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6889361 | Bates et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6892196 | Hughes | May 2005 | B1 |
6973481 | MacIntosh et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7010616 | Carlson et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7017173 | Armstrong et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7035903 | Baldonado | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7043690 | Bates et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7069300 | Toyota et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7089278 | Churchill et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7107544 | Luke | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7120668 | Manber et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7139850 | Amemiya et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7143135 | Smith et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7171429 | Frieden et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7206388 | Diacakis | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213210 | Reysa | May 2007 | B2 |
7222299 | Lim et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7328242 | McCarthy et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7340674 | Newman | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356772 | Brownholtz et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7359936 | Gruen et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7383250 | Scian et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7383307 | Kirkland et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386439 | Charnock et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7412437 | Moody et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7421690 | Forstall et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7433920 | Blagsvedt et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7472357 | Satterfield et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7484175 | Kirkland | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7505759 | Rahman | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7523222 | Carlson | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7565347 | Broder et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565534 | Starbuck et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7593995 | He et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7596594 | Karp | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7599852 | Bosarge et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7693866 | Weaver et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7716593 | Durazo et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730113 | Payette et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7788326 | Buchheit et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7814155 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7818378 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7899871 | Kumar et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7904510 | Anderson et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7912904 | Buchheit et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7962508 | Moody et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8265670 | Yasuda et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8601062 | Buchheit et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
20010016845 | Tribbensee | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010042100 | Guedalia et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047294 | Rothschild | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010775 | Rakavy et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020049610 | Gropper | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020073156 | Newman | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087649 | Horvitz | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020093527 | Sherlock et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020108125 | Joao | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020169841 | Carlson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188683 | Lytle et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194229 | Decime et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009385 | Tucciarone et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030020749 | Abu-Hakima et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037339 | Lee | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030055711 | Doherty | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030093315 | Sato | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101065 | Rohall et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110227 | O'Hagan | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120737 | Lytle et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135555 | Birrel et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145285 | Miyahira et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158903 | Rohall et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163537 | Rohall et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167310 | Moody et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177190 | Moody et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030229607 | Zellweger et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233419 | Beringer | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040015553 | Griffin et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040044735 | Hoblit | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054737 | Daniell | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059712 | Dean et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073616 | Fellenstein | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078432 | Manber et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083265 | Beringer | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040098488 | Mayers | May 2004 | A1 |
20040117448 | Newman et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133564 | Gross et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153509 | Alcorn et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186766 | Fellenstein et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199589 | Keohane et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205141 | Goland | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210587 | Reysa | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040260710 | Marston et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260756 | Forstall et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267700 | Dumais et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004990 | Durazo et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050060643 | Glass et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080859 | Lake | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086096 | Bryant | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086598 | Marshall, III et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091318 | Keohane et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091320 | Kirsch et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108345 | Suzuki | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114781 | Brownholtz et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138002 | Giacobbe et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138552 | Venolia | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144157 | Moody et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144241 | Stata et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050198172 | Appelman et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198173 | Evans | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198256 | Moody et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204009 | Hazarika et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223057 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050223061 | Auerbach et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050223066 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050223067 | Buchheit et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050223072 | Greve et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234848 | Lawrence et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050289468 | Kahn et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060026593 | Canning et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031303 | Pang | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031304 | Bagga et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060085502 | Sundararajan et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060123091 | Ho | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060128404 | Klassen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060168067 | Carlson et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060248209 | Chiu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271630 | Bensky et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070038707 | Broder et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070047697 | Drewry et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070060206 | Dam Nielsen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067404 | Brown et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070143411 | Costea et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143428 | Kumar et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070198639 | Litwin et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070255791 | Bodlaender et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070300153 | Newman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080091656 | Charnock et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080147815 | Damm et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080281813 | Moody et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080313292 | Forstall et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090030774 | Rothschild et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090089292 | Cheah | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100030798 | Kumar et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100064017 | Buchheit et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070584 | Chen et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100241700 | Rasmussen et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100318555 | Broder et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110035681 | Mandel et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110153585 | Ramamurthi | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110161270 | Arnett et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110225249 | Forstall et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110264750 | Fabre et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120185797 | Thorsen et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120209853 | Desai et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120296891 | Rangan | Nov 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1347530 | May 2002 | CN |
1360782 | Jul 2002 | CN |
1402159 | Mar 2003 | CN |
1429376 | Jul 2003 | CN |
1438595 | Aug 2003 | CN |
1464458 | Dec 2003 | CN |
0886228 | Dec 1998 | EP |
2369218 | May 2002 | GB |
09-128407 | May 1997 | JP |
11-015763 | Jan 1999 | JP |
2000-187631 | Jul 2000 | JP |
2000-276474 | Oct 2000 | JP |
2001-222477 | Aug 2001 | JP |
2002-014903 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-359667 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2003-030216 | Jan 2003 | JP |
2003-067306 | Mar 2003 | JP |
2003-108278 | Apr 2003 | JP |
2004-054614 | Feb 2004 | JP |
2004-173124 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2005-536790 | Dec 2005 | JP |
WO 0023931 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO 0161551 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 03058519 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO 03067497 | Aug 2003 | WO |
20100241749 | Sep 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Bitmap Index, Internet Citation, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap—index, 050CT2010, 5 pgs. |
Google Inc., Decision to Grant a Patent, JP 2011-181202, Mar. 7, 2013, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Decision to Grant a Patent, JP 2011-181203, Mar. 11, 2013, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Decision to Grant a Patent, JP 2011-181204, Mar. 11, 2013, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Extended European Search Report, EP 12192299.1, Mar. 6, 2013, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., ISR/WO, PCT/US2012/046876, Feb. 22, 2013, 12 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notice of Acceptance, AU 2011201989, Oct. 27, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notice of Acceptance, AU 2011201993, Mar. 21, 2013, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2011-181205, Mar. 11, 2013, 4 pgs. |
Navarro, Indexing and Searching, Modern Information Retrieval, Ch. 8, Jan. 1, 1999, pp. 191-228. |
Ogilvie, Experiments with Language Models for Known-Item Finding of Email Messages, TREC 2005, Nov. 15-18, 2005, 10 pgs. |
About Microsoft Word screen shot, May 28, 2007, 1 pg. |
Apple Computer Inc, Mail 1.3.3 Help: Checking Spelling in Email, Aug. 31, 2004, 1 pg. |
Apple Computer Inc., Mac mail utility screenshot, Aug. 18, 2004, 1 pg. |
Bellotti, Taking Email to Task; the design and evaluation of a task management centered email tool, Apr. 5-10, 2003, 8 pgs. |
Bellotti, Taskmaster: recasting email as task management, Feb. 2, 2009, 5 pgs. |
Comer, Conversation-based Mail, Nov. 1986, 21 pgs. |
Courter, Mastering Microsoft Office 2000—Professional Edition, p. 5. |
Courter, Mastering Microsoft Office 2000—Professional Edition, pp. 36-37 and 92-94. |
Elsas, Retrieval and Feedback Models for Blog Feed Search, SIGIR '08, Jan. 1, 2008, 8 pgs. |
Flores, Computer Systems and the Design of Organizational Interaction, Apr. 1988, 20 pgs. |
Google Inc., ISR/WO, PCT/US2012/046872, Sep. 28, 2012, 11 pgs. |
Google Inc., European Search Report, EP 11172427.4, Dec. 21, 2011, 6 pgs. |
Google Inc., ESR, EP 12183097.0, Nov. 5, 2012, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., ESR, EP 12183103.6, Nov. 5, 2012, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., IPRP, PCT/US2005/006826, Oct. 4, 2006, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., ISR/WO, PCT/US2005/006826, Jun. 26, 2006, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., ISR/WO, PCT/US2005/010137, Jun. 3, 2005, 11 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notice of Acceptance, AU 2011203058, Jan. 6, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201989, Apr. 12, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201991, Mar. 8, 2012, 2 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201992, Aug. 16, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201993, Oct. 11, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201993, Feb. 28, 2012, 2 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011201994, Mar. 8, 2012, 2 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, AU 2011203058, Oct. 31, 2011, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CN 200580016413.8, Jul. 2, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CN 200580016413.8, Dec. 19, 2011, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, EP 05724384.2, Nov. 23, 2012, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, IN 1262/MUMNP/2006, Sep. 27, 2011, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2010-275595, Jul. 6, 2012, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2011-181202, Aug. 29, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2011-181203, Aug. 27, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2011-181204, Aug. 27, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, JP 2011-181205, Aug. 29, 2012, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2006-7022840, Jan. 26, 2012, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2011-7017094, Sep. 26, 2011, 5 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2011-7017095, Sep. 29, 2011, 5 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2011-7017096, Oct. 4, 2011, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2011-7017098, Oct. 4, 2011, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, KR 2011-7017102, Oct. 4, 2011, 4 pgs. |
Lawrence, Context and page analysis for improved web search, Oct. 31, 1998, 9 pgs. |
Lin, Modeling Semantics and Structure of Discussion Threads, WWW'09, Jan. 1, 2009, 1 pg. |
O'Hara, Easy Microsoft Office Outlook 2003, Sep. 18, 2003, 44 pgs. |
Resnick, Network Working Group, RFC 2822, Apr. 2011, 65 pgs. |
Russel, Special Edition Using Microsoft Office Outlook 2003, Sep. 25, 2003, 102 pgs. |
Screenshot of reply to message in Lotus Notes 6.5, Aug. 6, 2007, 1 pg. |
Seo, Online Community Search Using Conversational Structures, V14, N6, Apr. 23, 2011, 25 pgs. |
Shepherd, Strudel-an extensiBle electronic conversation toolkit, Oct. 1990, 12 pgs. |
Syroid, Outlook 2000 in a Nutshell, O'Reilly, May 2, 2000, pp. 1-66. |
Tobias, Dan's Mail Format Site, Aug. 3, 2003, 6 pgs. |
Tyson, Sams Teach Yourself Microsoft Outlook 2000 in 24 Hours, 1999, pp. 237. |
Venolia, Supporting Email Workflow, Sep. 2001, 11 pgs. |
Winograd, A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work, 1987-1988, pp. 3-30. |
Winograd, Where the Action is, Dec. 1998, 5 pgs. |
Zawinski, Message Threading, Jul. 22, 2004, 9 pgs. http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html. |
Giacoletto, Automatic Expansion of Manual Email Classifications Based on Text Analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, vol. 2888, 2003, pp. 785-802. |
Google Inc., Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC, EP 05730150.9, Nov. 4, 2010, 6 pgs. |
Google Inc., International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2012/046872, Feb. 6, 2014, 8 pgs. |
Google Inc., International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2012/046876, Feb. 6, 2014, 9 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notice of Acceptance, AU 2011201992, Oct. 31, 2012, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Requisition by the Examiner, CA 2,561,580, Jul. 12, 2013, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Requisition by the Examiner, CA 2,561,580, Oct. 12, 2010, 1 pg. |
Gruen, Lessons from the reMail prototypes, CSCW '04, ACM, New York, NY, 2004, pp. 152-161. |
Kerr, Designing remail: reinventing the email client through innovation and integration, CHI '04, ACM, New York, NY, 2004, pp. 837-852. |
McWherter, Software architecture to facilitate automated message recording and context annotation, SPIE 4208, Dec. 29, 2000, pp. 122. |
Quan, A Unified Abstraction for Messaging on the Semantic Web, WWW 2003, 2003, pp. 231. |
Samiel, EzMail: using informmation visualization techniques to help manage email, IV 2004, Jul. 14-16, 2004, pp. 477-482. |
Shrestha, Detection of question-answer pairs in email conversations, COLING '04, Stroudsburg, PA, 2004, Article 889. |
Rohall, Email Visualizations to Aid Communications, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), 2001, p. 1-4. |
Venolia, Understanding Sequence and Replay Relationships within Email Conversations: A Mixed-Model Visualization, CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale FL, Apr. 5-10, 2003, pp. 361-368. |
Autonom webpage, http://autonomy.com, 2004, 1 pg. |
Cordess, Taking a Look at Zoe, Google Your Email, Apr. 26, 2004, 1 pg. |
DolphinSearch webpage, www.dolphinsearch.com, 2004, 1 pg. |
eComrnerce Customer Service: Email Management Systems that Work, eGain Corporation White Paper, 1998, 9 pgs. |
Enfish webpage, www.enfish.com, 2004, 1 pg. |
Flenner, Replace Those Shared Drives With Space Drives, O'Reilly on Java.com, Aug. 28, 2002, 7 pgs. |
Friedman, The Dashboard, 2003, 2 pgs. |
Gelernter, Expert Voice: David Gelernter on Knowledge Management, Cioinsight, Oct. 10, 2002, 6 pgs. |
Google Inc., ISR/WO, PCT/US2005/031920, May 3, 2006, 3 pgs. |
Kanellos, Microsoft Aims for Search on Its Own Terms, c/net News.com, Nov. 24, 2003, 4 pgs. |
Lotus Discovery Server webpage, lotus.com/product/disecserver.nsf, 2004, 1 pg. |
My Take on Dashboard: Multiple Desktops Done Differently, engadgeted.net, Jul. 23, 2004, 2 pgs. |
Opera Mail Client, Opera M2 wcbpage, www.opera.com/products/desktop/m2, Jun. 2004, 3 pgs. |
Placeless Documents, Xerox Corporation, www2.pare.com/csl/projects/placeless, 1999, 2 pgs. |
Searching ZoeDocs, zoe.omara.ca/index.ph?page—searching, Dec. 2003, 3 pgs. |
The Apache Jakarta Project, jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/indes.htlm, 2004, 1 pg. |
Udell, Googling Your Email, O'Reilly Network, Oct. 7, 2002, 4 pgs. |
What Does Autonomy Do?, http://www.autonomy.com/content/home, 2003, 5 pgs. |
X1 About Us, www.x1.com/abou—us/, 2004, 1 pg. |
X1 Enterprise Edition product page, www.x1.com/?PROGOOG, 2004, 2 pgs. |
ZoeDocs, http://zoe.omara.ca/LikeZoe, Nov. 2003, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Notice of Reasons for Rejection, JP 2013-113280, Mar. 5, 2014, 3 pgs. |
Tefaguchi, Customizing to the limit for an easy to use personal computer, Windows 2000/XP Environment Improving Committee 29th e-mail software part (1), Fully utilizing “Outlook Express”, Windows 2000 World, K. K. IDG Japan, Jan. 1, 2013, vol. 8, No. 1, 11 pgs. |
Anupam, Personalizing the Web using site descriptions, Proc. 10th Int'l Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 1999, pp. 732, 738. |
Google Inc., Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC, EP 12183097.0, Nov. 11, 2013, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC, EP 12183103.6, Nov. 11, 2013, 7 pgs. |
Google Inc., Decision to Grant a Patent, JP 2011-181205, Sep. 6, 2013, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CA 2,561,580, Jul. 12, 2013, 4 pgs. |
Haas, Personalized news through content augmentation and profiling, Int'l Conf. on Image Processing 2002, vol. 2, pp. II-9,II-12. |
Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Outlook 2003, Released Nov. 20, 2003, 4 pgs. |
Sudarsky, Visualizing Electronic Mail, Proc. 6th Int'l Conference on Information Visualisation, 2002, pp. 3, 9. |
Zelman, Threaded Email Messages in Self-Organization and Science & Technology Studies Oriented Mailing Lists, Kluwer Academic Publishers—Scientometrics, Jul. 1, 2000, vol. 48, Iss. 3, pp. 361-380. |
Electronic Discovery Solutions from DolphinSearch, www.dolphinsearch.com, 2003, 1 pg. |
Google Inc., First Office Action, CN 201110416451.X, Jun. 24, 2014, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CA 2,561,580, Jul. 29, 2014, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Supplemental European Search Report, EP 05724384.2, Mar. 16, 2009, 5 pgs. |
Liu, Keyword fusion to support efficient keyword-based Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2004, CCGrid search in peer-to-peer file sharing, Apr. 19-22, 2004, pp. 269-276. |
Liu, Supporting efficient keyword-based file search in peer-to-peer file sharing systems, Global Telecommunications Conference, 2004, GLOBECOM '04, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004, pp. 1259-1265. |
Chan, Co-training with a Single Natural Feature Set Applied to Email Classification, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence 2004, Sep. 20-24, 2004, pp. 586-589. |
Crespo, Language model adaptation for conversational speech recognition using automatically tagged pseudo-morphological classes, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1997, pp. 823-826. |
Henry, Off-the-record email system, 20th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, vol. 2, 2001, p. 869-877. |
Kaushik, A policy driven approach to email services, 5th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Policy 2004, Jun. 7-9, 2004, pp. 169-178. |
Kerr, Thread Arcs: an email thread visualization, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2003, Oct. 21, 2003, pp. 211-218. |
Donath, Visualizing Conversation, J. Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 4, Iss. 4, Blackwell Publishing, Jun. 1999, 18 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notice of Reasons for Rejection, JP 2014-112132, Apr. 28, 2015, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CA 2,561,580, Jul. 13, 2015, 8 pgs. |
Google Inc., Office Action, CN 201110416439.9, May 29, 2015, 6 pgs. |
Google Inc., Patent Examination Report No. 1, AU 2013205898, Jun. 26, 2015, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Second Office Action, CN 201110416451.X, May 14, 2015, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Second Office Action, CN 201110416455.8, May 7, 2015, 4 pgs. |
Google Inc., Second Office Action, CN 201110416787.6, May 7, 2015, 4 pgs. |
Shigekazu, Practice Course of E-mail (4) Managing received mails, Touch PC, Japan, Mainichi Communications Inc., Mar. 24, 1999, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 96-98 <<No. English version available>>. |
Google Inc., Decision of Rejection, CN 201110416451.X, Dec. 23, 2015, 5 pgs. |
Google Inc., First Office Action, CN 201110416455.8, Dec. 14, 2015, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notification of the Third Office Action, CN Patent Application 201110416787.6, Dec. 11, 2015, 3 pgs. |
Google Inc., Notification of the Third Office Action, CN 201110416439.9, Feb. 5, 2016, 4 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130117691 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10815284 | Mar 2004 | US |
Child | 11522549 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13221825 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 13727493 | US | |
Parent | 11961911 | Dec 2007 | US |
Child | 13221825 | US | |
Parent | 11522549 | Sep 2006 | US |
Child | 11961911 | US |