The disclosure relates generally to a user interface for use with a search engine for searching financial related documents.
Conventional web search engines return links to entire documents in response to a search query consisting of keywords or phrases given by the user. In the financial domain, the end user is often a financial analyst who is researching the information source and looking for specific textual information within a specific contextual topic. Text search software is able to find specific keywords, but typically misses the many synonyms and alternative expressions that the user was not able to think about, or does not have time to go through one by one. For example, “sales growth” as a topic could be expressed as “revenue expansion”, “increasing customer demand” or any number of tens or even hundreds of combinations of synonyms, with phrases broken up within a sentence or across multiple sentences. Searching for each of those terms or all of those terms at once is not practical, as it would take a lot of time, would require referral to synonyms and may not return some or most of the actual sentences or paragraphs that one seeks. Traditional search engines can therefore either miss the relevant and important items of interest, or bring too many documents that contain the same keywords but in the wrong context, in effect rendering the search useless. Also, financial analysts are often evaluating whether the text expressions are positive or negative for the company's stock price, but traditional search engines do not allow the analyst to search for text that is either positive or negative from the perspective of the price of the company's stock. In addition, the analyst would like to know if the statement was made earlier, is a recurring statement and if it refers to an event in the future.
Thus, it is desirable to provide a method and a system for efficiently conducting contextual, uniqueness or recurring, tense and sentiment-aware deep search within a document, and it is to this end that the disclosure is directed.
The disclosure is particularly applicable to a web-based client server architecture deep search system and method for the financial industry and it is in this context that the disclosure will be described. It will be appreciated, however, that the system and method in accordance with the invention has much greater utility since it can be used for searching in other industries or with other types of pieces of content (such as the legal industry and legal documents, the medical industry and medical documents, etc.) and the system can be implemented using other computer system architectures and the system is not limited to any particular computer architecture. For illustration purposes, the deep search system and method implemented in the financial industry is now described in more detail.
The system and method may be used to perform a textual search across a collection of documents in one or more electronic data sources, in the financial domain, over time, guided by concepts and scenarios pre-defined by financial experts. The system includes a context extraction engine that will a) recognize semantically defined unique and recurring scenarios within the textual material, consisting of a partial or whole sentence or multiple sentences, b) analyze and classify each scenario based on tense recognizing linguistic rules and natural language processing techniques, c) analyze sentiment and subjectivity to determine if the scenario is objective or subjective and d) determine the polarity and strength of sentiment relative to the company releasing the textual information and the likely impact on its stock price or the price of its other securities. The sentiment, subjectivity, the polarity and strength of the sentiment and the impact of the information may be stored as metadata associated with each piece of content. Based on this metadata, the system enables sophisticated searching within and across pieces of content, such as documents, SEC or other regulatory filings, transcripts of investor calls and presentations, videos, blogs, posts and the like, to find the specific information that the user is looking for. The system also scores companies in real-time on a continuous scale from negative to neutral to positive, and enables a user to rank and screen companies to generate new investment ideas and make better investment decisions. Now, an example of an implementation of the search system is described in more detail.
The system 20 may be one or more computing devices 22 (such as computing devices 22a, 22b, . . . , 22n) that connect to, communicate with and/or exchange data over a link 24 to a search system 26 that interact with each other to provide the contextual and sentiment-aware deep search within a piece of content. Each computing device may be a processing unit based device with sufficient processing power, memory/storage and connectivity/communications capabilities to connect to and interact with the system 26. For example, each computing device 22 may be an Apple iPhone or iPad product, a Blackberry or Nokia product, a mobile product that executes the Android operating system, a personal computer, a tablet computer, a laptop computer and the like and the system is not limited to operate with any particular computing device. The link 26 may be any wired or wireless communications link that allows the one or more computing devices and the system 26 to communicate with each other. In one example, the link may be a combination of wireless digital data networks that connect to the computing devices and the Internet. The search system 26 may be implemented as one or more server computers (all located at one geographic location or in disparate locations) that execute a plurality of lines of computer code to implement the functions and operations of the search system as described below in more detail. Alternatively, the search system 26 may be implemented as a hardware unit in which the functions and operations of the back end system are programmed into a hardware system. In one implementation, the one or more server computers may use 4-core Intel® processors, run the Linux operating system, and execute Java, Ruby, Regular Expression, Flex 4.0, SQL etc.
In the implementation shown in
In the implementation shown in
The sentiment analyzer unit of the search system then analyzes each piece of text for subjectivity, performs textual scenario matching and filters the subjective sentences and assigns appropriate polarity based on supervised training rules, by deciding if the particular sentence or paragraph is favorable or unfavorable to the price of the asset in the case of the financial industry example (58,60). Examples of the polarities (negative, neutral and/or positive scenarios) are shown in
The sentence or paragraph extracted from the piece of content may be marked with the topic tags, polarity tags, index markers, sentiment values etc. and stored in the store 48 that is coupled to the context search engine, the sentiment engine and the linguistic components. The traditional sentiment analysis is focused on the document level, helping users to find whole documents that in the aggregate have a positive or negative tone, as opposed to the sentence or paragraph level where the topic of interest is located. For example, the document level sentiment scores may be computed based on the sentence level scores as a net sentiment percentage of the total possible count. For example, Number of positive statements—Number of negative statements divided by the total number of statements may be used to determine sentiment score of the document, although other methods may be used to determine the sentiment score for the document. In the system described here, the sentiment tags and the topic tags at the sentence, sub-sentence and/or paragraph level provide the user with granular search capabilities and let them find the relevant text that can explain or help predict price changes for a given asset. The search system may then store the final results of all the tagged information in the store 48 associated with the search system.
The system presents a user interface to the user (See
Once the financial documents are retrieved, the system performs a data cleansing process 62 in which the system, among other things, removing extra tags, removing styles, removing extra HTML code and reformatting the financial document as HTML without tags. In addition, for example for SEC packages of documents, the system may extract the HTML and text documents from the SEC package and append them into one HTML document. In more detail, the document is received as an HTML formatted document and plain text documents. In order to identify sentences of text in the documents, the system determines what chunks of text are useful statements, where a sentence starts and ends and how HTML may alter the document. In particular, to determine what text chunks are real statements that state something about a matter of affairs, such as: ComEd has no remaining costs to be recognized related to the rate relief commitment as of Sep. 30, 2010, as compared to text chunks that are titles, page footers and headers, such as: Table of Contents or (Dollars in millions, except per share data, unless otherwise noted), the content extracting unit uses a combination of sentence features, such as HTML tags, end-of-sentence punctuation signs, and length thresholds of sentences (in number of words and characters), to separate useful content from the extraneous content. To determine where a sentence begins and ends, the content extraction unit splits sentences at punctuation signs, but takes abbreviations and acronyms into account, such as Mr., Inc., and U.S. If a document is HTML, sentences can usually be expected to occur entirely within one pair of enclosing tags, such as begin and end of paragraph: <p> . . . </p>. There may be multiple sentences within one paragraph, but sentences are not usually split over multiple paragraphs.
However, if a sentence is split over a page break, or if the document is plain text without any HTML formatting, the system concatenates chunks of text to reconstruct the paragraphs in the text by using some heuristics based on the spacing of the text and the occurrence of page footer and header clues, so as not to erroneously concatenate text that does not belong together, such the end of a paragraph and a following section title. When the particular document is split into sentences, each sentence is saved as plain text under TxtData/and the document is saved as HTML with each sentence embedded with <span> tags, which are used by the search system to highlight sentences when the sentences are displayed to the user.
Once the extraneous content in the document is removed, the content extraction unit extracts the key sentences/portions in the piece of content (64) (such as the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MDA) portions of an SEC filing). An SEC filing contains different sections, such as a document header, document body, and exhibits section. Within the body and exhibits, there are subsections, such as the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and the Notes to the Financial Statements. The location of these sections are identified by a combination of regular expression patterns, and some information of the size and order of sections in the document, and some excluding patterns that disqualify matching patterns that occur in the wrong context, such as in the table of contents. The system thus extracts these key portions of the document.
The content extraction unit may also extract recurring/boilerplate sentences in the content (66) (such as sentences that are the same as in prior documents for each asset in an SEC filing).
As companies file on a quarterly basis, typically some of the text they submit is repeated from earlier reports. The content extraction unit identifies the recurring statements and indicate that they are “less interesting” than the new statements by coloring the recurring statements grey in the user interface when shown to the user and by storing them in the store 48 with an indicating that they are recurring statements. Recurring statements are identified by comparing each statement in the current filing to all statements in the previous filing of the company (through the use of the store 48) and a comparison is performed on normalized statements, where some stop words and whitespace characters are ignored. Thus, the system also extracts these recurring portions of the document from the document and store them in the store 48. In one implementation, information about all filings that are currently in the system for a company (in the financial example) are stored in a FORM_TBL table in the store (that may be implemented using MySql) and the recurring sentences are tagged in the files in TxtData/. As in the following steps, each file is read from TxtData/, modified, and written back to TxtData/.
Once the various sentences have been extracted from the document, sentiment, topic, recurring/boilerplate classification and tagging (68) are performed in order to tag and classify each sentence in the document including tags for sentiment, topics, tense, tone, etc. Using a topic taxonomy that is specific to the industry or field in which the documents pertain, the search system identifies which topics are present in the sentences (such as Revenue, Cash flow, Risks, etc for the financial industry). The search system may also perform part-of-speech tagging using a linguistic tagger to identify the parts of speech of the words in the sentences (nouns, verbs, etc.) and the results may be saved under PosTagged/. The system may also identify sentences that are forward looking (containing present and future tense, plans, intentions, . . . ) where part-of-speech tags in combination with industry knowledge based taxonomies are used here for disambiguation (forward looking statements in SEC filings). Boilerplate sentences that typically occur in all filings (such as those explaining what “Forward looking statements” mean) may be similarly recognized and tagged for removal.
The range topics for a particular industry are selected since some topics are of particular interest to financial analysts, such as Sales, Orders and Backlog, Same Store Sales or Net Interest Income. To tag the topics for a particular industry, like the financial industry, the system provides key topic search queries that have been predesigned by financial experts and that identify statements in the text that contain references to the topics. For example, the Orders and Backlog topic may correspond to the following example search query:
This query contains the boolean operators or, and, and not that combine different search terms into one query. Words or phrases enclosed in square brackets are literal matches; e.g., [orders] matches the word “orders” (irrespective of character case). Words without square brackets are stemmed before matching; e.g., customer matches any inflected form of “customer”: “customer, customers, customer's”. The special functions FOLLOW and NEAR indicate a set of words that have to occur within a window of predefined size, allowing for stray words within the window that do not match any of the words in the query; e.g., FOLLOW(5, [order], cancellation) indicates that the word “cancellation” may occur at a maximum distance of 5 words from the word “order”, in the given order: “order” before “cancellation”. The function NEAR works as FOLLOW but the order of the words within the clause is free.
An example of the results for tagging sentences for boiler, forward looking statements and topic may be:
Sentence: On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable and sales allowances, fair values of financial instruments, intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of stock-based awards, income taxes, and contingent liabilities, among others.
Sentence: A discount factor was applied over these estimated cash flows of our ARS, which is calculated based on the interpolated forward swap curve adjusted by up to 1,700 basis points to reflect the current market conditions for instruments with similar credit quality at the date of the valuation and further adjusted by up to 400 basis points to reflect a discount for the liquidity risk associated with these investments due to the lack of an active market.
Sentence: For all acquisitions completed during the nine months ended Sep. 30, 2010, patents and developed technology have a weighted-average useful life of 4.1 years, customer relationships have a weighted-average useful life of 3.3 years and tradenames and other have a weighted-average useful life of 4.0 years.
As described above, the linguistic unit also discerns the topic of the content using special linguistic rules. The linguistic rules may be, for example:
For fast matching, the regular expressions are compiled into Finite State Automata using finite-state algebra.
The search system may also use a syntactic parser, e.g., a dependency parser. For example, the dependency parse of the sentence:
The company has available a $750 million bank credit facility that expires in December 2010.
Each dependency consists of a relation (e.g., det=determiner) between a head word (e.g., company) and its dependent (e.g, The). Each word token has an ID number attached to it (e.g., company-2) by which it is possible to uniquely identify that word occurrence; this is necessary if the same word occurs multiple times in the sentence, in different syntactic positions.
Rules can be expressed using dependencies. For instance, the sentence above is classified as forward-looking because the dependency prep(expires-13, in-14) matches the rule:
The sentiment analyzer unit may classify sentences in a document/piece of content as objective (=neutral sentiment) vs. subjective (=positive or negative sentiment). Sentiment extraction involves three steps:
1. Feature extraction: Terms, phrases, or co-occurring words that are judged to be relevant from the point of view of sentiment classification are selected by a domain expert according to the approaches described in above. Another alternative is using n-grams or a combination of features.
2. Objective vs. subjective classification: Supervised machine learning is utilized to learn to distinguish between objective and subjective statements based on the features of step 1. The machine learning techniques can be linear regression, Support Vector Machines, decision trees, or artificial neural networks, to name a few.
3. Positive vs. negative classification: If the sentiment is in step 2 is classified as subjective, then a further classifier classifies the statements as positive or negative or neutral, based on pattern matching against a large database of positive, negative and neutral textual features built by financial domain experts. The open source Support Vector Machine algorithm (LibSVM) is trained based on the annotators results by letting it figure out the key features that happen to affect the predictions the most. This part of the algorithm is based on the open source implementation. The features and the guidelines that drive the annotations described earlier, determine the effectiveness of the classification results and thus distinguish our sentiment prediction from other approaches that happen to use the SVM or other machine learning techniques.
In some embodiments of the system, processes 2 and 3 above may be combined into one single machine learning step. Consider, for instance, the following rule-based approaches to feature extraction for sentiment:
A rule is expressed as one or multiple dependency relations between words.
To extract sentiment topic features, dependency rules can be written that operate on the dependencies discovered by the shallow parser.
As a result of the processes above, the store 48 has a plurality of sentences for each document with each sentence or other portion of the document having one or more topics tags and sentiments associated with each portion of the document. This combined data is them used to perform the deep searches as described below and generate the user interfaces that are described below.
Once the tagging and classification has been completed, the sentences, sentiments of the sentences and other asset specific information for qualitative, trend and heat map analysis may be loaded into a database (70) so that for example, the heat map as shown in
In addition, the sentences and key paragraphs may be loaded into a SOLR database (72) during indexing so that the search engine can performs its deep searches based on the portions of the documents, the topic tags and the sentiments. In more detail, XML is created that corresponds to the SOLR entries, both on sentence level (TopicXml) and filing level (FullFilingXml). In addition, the data is posted to SOLR, which makes the filing appear in the web application. For historical reasons, the sentence level info is stored in SolrTopic, and the filing level info is stored in SolrMda. In addition, the system also highlights sentiments in the sentences of the document (74) for later viewing as described below in which the sentiments are “tagged” to the sentences and some HTML is added to reflect the highlighting.
documents based on a search. The user interface 80 may also have a topics portion 86 that lists the topics associated with the particular subject matter area, the financial industry documents in this example. When the system is used in a different subject matter area, such as the law, the system would like a different set of topics in the list. The list of topics portions can be used at any time during the viewing of documents to change the topics of interest. Any time that the user changes the topics, the viewing portion 84 is dynamically updated as the user changes the topics, for example. In
The processes of the deep search system and method described above can be used to generate reports for the user that help the user quickly review a quick “cliff notes” summary of the document or a range of documents because the system as described above can identify relevant sentences within a large document, or many documents, based on the user's custom criteria (e.g. topic, tense, tone, recurring, keyword search, industries, market caps, etc. . . . ), and create the document summary of summary of a range of documents. Thus, using the system, a user can skim-read through a pre-highlighted document or multiple documents, focusing on what he had pre-defined as important (and what the system thus highlighted), as opposed to having to read everything. The deep search system may further have a report generator unit that generates reports, such as those shown in
In an implementation of the deep search system, the content extraction processes may include a rule parsing algorithm that emulate key functions such as NEAR, PHRASE, FOLLOW, FUZZY, EXACT, DICTIONARY etc with the rules being expressed as XML and interpreted by our rule process execution engine wherein the rules are applied to extract the topic features for each sentence. In the same implementation, the linguistic process uses an open source finite state machine, regular expression optimizers and PERL style Regular Expression generators. In the same implementation, the sentiment analyzer process uses a combination of linguistic rules and machine learning techniques such as SVM (Support Vector Machine) and Neural Network models. In the sentiment analysis, the system is seeded with the topic features based on topic extracting rules and linguistic features based on shallow and some deep parsing algorithms. Then, the machine learning algorithm select the appropriate features based on human annotated sentences.
While the foregoing has been with reference to a particular embodiment of the invention, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that changes in this embodiment may be made without departing from the principles and spirit of the disclosure, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/444,828, entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Feb. 19, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/384,534, entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Oct. 27, 2023, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,907,511 issued on Feb. 20, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/370,614, entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Sep. 20, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/134,354, entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Apr. 13, 2023, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,861,148 issued on Jan. 2, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/134,302 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Apr. 13, 2023, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,809,691 issued on Nov. 7, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/099,763 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Jan. 20, 2023, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 issued on Jun. 27, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 18/082,765 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Dec. 16, 2022, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,704,006 issued on Jul. 18, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/945,436 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Sep. 15, 2022, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,561,682 issued on Jan. 24, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent application Ser. No. 17/532,120 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Nov. 22, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,740,770 issued on Aug. 29, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/384,075 entitled “SERVER WITH ASSOCIATED REMOTE DISPLAY HAVING IMPROVED ORNAMENTALITY AND USER FRIENDLINESS FOR SEARCHING DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES”, filed on Jul. 23, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,216,164 issued on Jan. 4, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/244,994 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Apr. 30, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,227,109 issued on Jan. 18, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/107,148 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Nov. 30, 2020, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,205,043 issued on Dec. 21, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/891,254 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH A SEARCH ENGINE FOR SEARCHING FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS”, filed on Feb. 7, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,023,675 issued on Jun. 1, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/820,507 entitled “USER INTERFACE FOR USE WITH SENTENCE LEVEL ANALYSIS AND SEARCHING OF FINANCIAL RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES”, filed on Nov. 22, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/939,165 entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING CONTEXTUAL SENTENCE LEVEL DEEP SEARCH WITH FORWARD LOOKING, RECURRING, SUBJECTIVITY AND SENTIMENT”, filed on Nov. 3, 2010, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/257,466 filed on Nov. 3, 2009. Each of the applications referenced herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5555426 | Johnson | Sep 1996 | A |
5704060 | Del Monte | Dec 1997 | A |
5754938 | Herz | May 1998 | A |
6453315 | Weissman | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460034 | Wical | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6850906 | Chadha | Feb 2005 | B1 |
7360163 | Masuda | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7454393 | Horvitz et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7606798 | Ge | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7739221 | Lawler et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7895221 | Colledge | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8131779 | Jonker et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8180713 | Rigby et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8196030 | Wang | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8265925 | Aarskog | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8589373 | Mayer | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8606815 | Chen et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8862573 | Musgrove | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8949233 | Hsiao et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9129008 | Kuznetsov | Sep 2015 | B1 |
9183286 | Chen | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9405751 | Hull | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9715543 | Macadaan | Jul 2017 | B2 |
10198506 | Qiao | Feb 2019 | B2 |
11907511 | Neervannan | Feb 2024 | B1 |
20020156760 | Lawrence | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20040230898 | Blakely et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050033711 | Horvitz et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055628 | Chen et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086224 | Franciosa | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050154617 | Ruggieri | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050235034 | Chen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050267871 | Marchisio et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060041605 | King et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041828 | King et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060050996 | King et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069589 | Nigam et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069670 | Khaliq | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060104515 | King et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060116994 | Jonker et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060200341 | Corston-Oliver et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060200342 | Corston-Oliver et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060242040 | Rader | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060253418 | Charnock et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277465 | Pandit et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005646 | Dumais et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033221 | Copperman | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070047819 | Hull | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070185859 | Flowers et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192265 | Chopin et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203720 | Singh | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203816 | Costache | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070219986 | Egozi | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070239662 | Fontes | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070260598 | Odom | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070300142 | King et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033587 | Kurita et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059451 | Musgrove | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080097985 | Olstad et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080109406 | Krishnasamy et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080120129 | Seubert | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133488 | Bandaru et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080148147 | Poston | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154883 | Chowdhury et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177994 | Mayer | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080209339 | Macadaan | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080214152 | Ramer et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080243842 | Liang | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080249764 | Huang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256040 | Sundaresan et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270387 | Weitenberner | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080313147 | Svore | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313172 | King et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090048823 | Liu et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090077658 | King et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090112892 | Cardie et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119156 | Dulepet | May 2009 | A1 |
20090119157 | Dulepet | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164387 | Armstrong et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090164417 | Nigam et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090171951 | Lucas et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090204610 | Hellstrom et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090254540 | Musgrove et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254572 | Redlich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265307 | Reisman et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090319342 | Shilman et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100030799 | Parker et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100114899 | Guha et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100169317 | Wang et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100177964 | King et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191758 | Peng et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100211562 | Busch | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100222032 | Griffin | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100257117 | Shvadron et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100262454 | Sommer | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100278453 | King | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110078167 | Sundaresan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110099184 | Symington | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110179009 | Nam | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110231395 | Vadlamani et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110261049 | Cardno et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20160042072 | Laporte | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160140237 | Musgrove | May 2016 | A1 |
20200143384 | Koontz et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200184151 | Ekmekci et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on Aug. 28, 2017, 29 pages. |
USPTO, Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on Jun. 13, 2016, 28 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on Aug. 13, 2015, 27 pages. |
USPTO, Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on May 7, 2015, 29 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on Jun. 24, 2014, 18 pages. |
Siadaty, et al., “Relemed: sentence-level search engine with relevance score for the Medline database of biomedical articles”, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2007, 7:1, pp. 1-11, Published on Jan. 10, 2007, 11 pages. |
Osamu Furuse, et al., “Opinion Sentence Search Engine on Open-domain Blog”, Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 6 pages. |
Jahna Otterbacker, et al., “Using Random Walks for Question-focused Sentence Retrieval”, Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference—Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2005, dated Oct. 6, 2005, pp. 915-922. |
Vanessa Graham Murdock, Aspects of sentence retrieval:, U Mass Amherst Dissertation for Ph.D., dated Sep. 2006, 171 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 15/820,507, mailed on Feb. 27, 2018, 11 pages. |
USPTO, Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,165, mailed on Mar. 28, 2018, 27 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 15/697,418, mailed on Dec. 19, 2018, 7 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/244,994, mailed on Aug. 27, 2021, 17 pages. |
Alphasense, Oy and Alphasense, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Sentieo, Inc., Defendant, Defendant Sentieo, Inc.'S Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Case 1:21-cv-01011-CFC, Document 30, Filed on Sep. 1, 2021, 29 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 17/107,148, mailed on Feb. 9, 2021, 17 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 17/384,138, mailed on Nov. 12, 2021, 11 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/404,350, mailed on Dec. 23, 2021, 11 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/538,959, mailed on Feb. 3, 2022, 9 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/384,138, mailed on Mar. 8, 2022, 11 pages. |
USPTO, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/384,138, mailed on Aug. 10, 2022, 14 pages. |
Alphasense, Oy and Alphasense, Inc. v. Sentio, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1011-CFC, Plaintiff Alphasense Oy's and Alphasense, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant Sentio, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, dated Oct. 14, 2021, 34 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/532,120, mailed on Oct. 12, 2022, 13 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/694,792, mailed on Feb. 3, 2023, 10 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/134,302, mailed on Jun. 14, 2023, 8 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/205,860, mailed on Aug. 16, 2023, 10 pages. |
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/134,354, mailed on Oct. 19, 2023, 10 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Kurita, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 147 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Guha, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 82 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Fontes, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 120 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on the Capital IQ System, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 36 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 48 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Search User Interfaces,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 81 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Information Retrieval: A Survey,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 56 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Google Guide,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 89 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Edgar Analyzer,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 53 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Edgar Extraction System,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 37 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “Modern Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 49 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on “An Introduction to Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 39 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Edgar Pro, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 42 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on FactSet, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 104 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on CapIQ, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 41 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Singh, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 82 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Ruggieri, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 63 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Costache, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 117 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Chadha, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 33 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Khaliq, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 82 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,244,273 based on Chopin, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 144 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Singh, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 93 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Ruggieri, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 64 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Costache, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 119 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Chadha, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 33 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Khaliq, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 69 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Chopin, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 140 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Kurita, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 111 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Guha, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 77 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Fontes, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 87 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on The Capital IQ System, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 31 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 48 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Search User Interfaces,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 67 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Information Retrieval: A Survey,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 53 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Google Guide,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 70 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Edgar Analyzer,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 49 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Edgar Extraction System,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 29 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “Modern Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 49 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on “An Introduction to Information Retrieval,” dated Mar. 25, 2024, 37 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on Edgar Pro, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 47 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on FactSet, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 83 pages. |
Tegus Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Pat. No. 11,687,218 based on CapIQ, dated Mar. 25, 2024, 37 pages. |
Yaw Etse: “Celsus Advanced Search and Document Search”, date created: Aug. 20, 2008, last updated: Sep. 10, 2008, 33 pages. |
Adam McCue: Capital IQ Filings Detailed View, date created: Oct. 7, 2008, 5 pages. |
Jeff Gates: Capital IQ FirstRain News & Blogs Page, date created: Nov. 13, 2007, 28 pages. |
John Fitzpatrick: Capital IQ “Research Enhancements (Apr. 2009)”, date created: Nov. 10, 2008, 8 pages. |
Alberto Zamora and David Shapiro: “Capital IQ / TheMarkets.com Research Integration”, 45 pages. |
Carlos Valle: Capital IQ “Transaction News”, 5 pages. |
John Gerdes Jr.: “Edgar-Analyzer: automating the analysis of corporate data contained in the SEC's Edgar database”, Decision Support Systems 35 (2003) 7-29. |
Gerry H. Grant and Sumali J. Conlon: “Edgar Extraction System: An Automated Approach to Analyze Employee Stock Option Disclosures”, Journal of Information Systems, vol. 20, No. 2, Fall 2006, pp. 119-142. |
Edgar Pro Quick Start Guide, Edgar Online Corporate Sales, updated Sep. 7, 9 pages. |
The Wayback Machine, “Making your your keyword search more effective:”, 2 pages. |
FactSet Research Systems Inc.: “30 years Annual Report 2008”, 80 pages. |
FactSet: “IB Central”, Apr. 29, 2008-Dec. 1, 2008, 1 page. |
FactSet: “Quick Start—Your guide to using FactSet”, May 21, 2010, 34 pages. |
Nancy Blachman: “Google Guide—An interactive tutorial on making searching even easier”, Feb. 21, 2004, 142 pages. |
Ed Greengrass: “Information Retrieval: A Survey”, Nov. 30, 2000, 224 pages. |
David A. Grossman and Ophir Frieder: “Information Retrieval—Algorithms and Heuristics—Second Edition”, 2004, 344 pages. |
Marti A. Hearst: “Search User Interfaces”, Cambridge University Press, 2009, 419 pages. |
Christopher D. Manning et al.: “An Introduction to Information Retrieval”, Cambridge University Press, Apr. 1, 2009, 581 pages. |
Ricardo Baeza-Yates and Berthier Ribeiro-Neto: “Modern Information Retrieval”, 1999, 538 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61257466 | Nov 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 18444828 | Feb 2024 | US |
Child | 18599723 | US | |
Parent | 18384534 | Oct 2023 | US |
Child | 18444828 | US | |
Parent | 18370614 | Sep 2023 | US |
Child | 18384534 | US | |
Parent | 18134354 | Apr 2023 | US |
Child | 18370614 | US | |
Parent | 18134302 | Apr 2023 | US |
Child | 18134354 | US | |
Parent | 18099763 | Jan 2023 | US |
Child | 18134302 | US | |
Parent | 18082765 | Dec 2022 | US |
Child | 18099763 | US | |
Parent | 17945436 | Sep 2022 | US |
Child | 18082765 | US | |
Parent | 17532120 | Nov 2021 | US |
Child | 17945436 | US | |
Parent | 17384075 | Jul 2021 | US |
Child | 17532120 | US | |
Parent | 17244994 | Apr 2021 | US |
Child | 17384075 | US | |
Parent | 17107148 | Nov 2020 | US |
Child | 17244994 | US | |
Parent | 15891254 | Feb 2018 | US |
Child | 17107148 | US | |
Parent | 15820507 | Nov 2017 | US |
Child | 15891254 | US | |
Parent | 12939165 | Nov 2010 | US |
Child | 15820507 | US |