This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/738,138, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On Relationships Between the User and Other Members of An Organization, filed Apr. 20, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,539,676.
1. Field of Invention
This invention generally relates to learning the behavior of a user navigating and selecting content on input and display constrained devices. More specifically, the invention relates to using the learned navigation and selection behavior data to personalize the user's interactions with various service providers and content query systems, e.g., to better find results to queries provided by the user and to order the results for presentation to the user.
2. Description of Related Art
The acid test for the usability of an information finding system on input constrained and display constrained devices is the effort expended by the user in the discovery of desired information (the discovery of information could be text based search, browsing a content space, or some combination of both). The effort expended by the user is the number of steps involved in interacting with an information finding system to discover the desired information. Each click of a button, or a scroll motion, or the entry of a character, would be perceived by the user as expended effort. The success of any user interface may be determined by this metric.
Minimizing the effort expended to find information (be it search or browse) is a challenging problem on input and display constrained devices such as mobile phones and televisions. The method of discovery the user chooses may vary upon the application context and the user intent—for example, a user may, from past habit, browse through the phonebook to a contact to make a call (especially when the contact list is small), or perform text input when searching for a web site. Browse based navigation is typically used (and is effective) when the user's intent is broad. Furthermore it is a viable form of navigation only when the content space is not very large at any level of navigation of the content space hierarchy—only text-based search is effective for content spaces that are large. Any solution however, needs to solve the “minimal effort” problem for both these forms of discovery.
The invention provides methods and systems for selecting and presenting content based on learned user navigation and selection actions associated with the content.
Under another aspect of the invention, a user-interface method of selecting and presenting a collection of content items in which the presentation is ordered at least in part based on navigation and selection behavior of a user learned over time includes providing a set of content items where each content item has an associated relevance weight on a per user basis. The method also includes organizing the content items into groups based on the informational content of the content items, each group of content items having an associated relevance weight on a per user basis. The method further includes receiving from the user navigation and selection actions, adjusting the associated relevance weight of the selected content item. The method also includes, in response to subsequent input entered by the user, selecting and presenting a subset of content items and content groups to the user where the content items and content groups are ordered at least in part by the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the content items and content groups such that content items with greater associated relevance weights are presented as more relevant content items within a content group and groups of content items with greater associated relevance weights are presented as more relevant groups of content items.
Under further aspect of the invention, the context such as geographic location of the user, day, date, and time, in which the user performed the selection action is associated with the adjusted relevance weighting of content items and groups of content items. The adjusted relevance weighting of content items and groups of content items is only used in subsequent searches by the user when the search is performed in the same or similar context.
Under yet another aspect of the invention, the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed as time passes from the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
Under yet another aspect of the invention, the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed based upon the number of user selections occurring after the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
These and other features will become readily apparent from the following detailed description where embodiments of the invention are shown and described by way of illustration.
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:
The invention addresses the shortcomings of existing information navigation systems by taking a unified approach to the information finding process, be it search (incremental or full word search) or browse, and helps the user find information of interest by personalizing the information space to match the user's actions and exploiting the relationship of the user to the information space being navigated. A multi-pronged holistic approach of taking into account (1) what the user does with the device (user's intent) (2) when do these interactions happen (3) and where do these interactions happen, provides significant insights into achieving the goal of reducing device interactions, and thereby improving the user experience.
For text-input based discovery content, the key factors to reduce the effort involved in discovering information is to reduce the number of characters the user has to type in to discover the desired information and the number of browse navigations to reach the desired result once it appears on the screen. Incremental text search, combined with the right relevance ordering of results, is key to reducing the effort involved in discovering content through text-input based search. For browse based discovery of content, minimizing the number of navigations (navigating through folders and linear scroll) through the browse hierarchy is key.
Preferred embodiments of the invention capture user preferences, user information navigation behavior, and a user's relationship to an information hierarchy. The learned data is used to personalize the user's interaction with various service providers and the user's interaction with content query systems, e.g., to personalize the navigation and discovery of information by the user. In an illustrative embodiment, the user is searching a phonebook for an individual phone number. In another illustrative embodiment, the user is an employee searching a corporate hierarchy for superiors, peers, and subordinates.
Embodiments of the present invention build on techniques, systems and methods disclosed in earlier filed applications, including but not limited to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/136,261, entitled Method and System For Performing Searches For Television Programming Using Reduced Text Input, filed on May 24, 2005; 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 on Oct. 7, 2005; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/235,928, entitled Method and System For Processing Ambiguous, Multiterm Search Queries, filed on Sep. 27, 2005; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/509,909, entitled User Interface For Visual Cooperation Between Text Input And Display Device, filed Aug. 25, 2006; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/682,693, entitled Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On Learned Periodicity Of User Content Selection, filed on Mar. 6, 2007; the contents of each of which are herein incorporated by reference. Those applications taught specific ways to perform incremental searches using ambiguous text input, methods of ordering the search results, and techniques for learning a user's behavior and preferences. The techniques disclosed in those applications can be used with the user's navigation behavior or the user's relationship to an information hierarchy described herein in the same or similar ways in which the techniques are applied to the collections of content items described in those applications. In such a case, the user's behavior or relationship described herein represents a particular type of content item. The present techniques, however, are not limited to systems and methods disclosed in the incorporated patent applications. Thus, while reference to such systems and applications may be helpful, it is not believed necessary to understand the present embodiments or inventions.
Referring to
Referring to
Personalized Navigation Based on the User's Navigation Behavior
For illustrative purposes
For example, a data hierarchy 401 is representative of a phonebook with data node Dk representing John Doe, child node CkJ representing John Doe's mobile phone number, and the other child node siblings to child node CkJ representing John Doe's other contact information such as home and office numbers. The data hierarchy also contains node D1 representing John Adams and node D2 representing John Brown. The user interface could, from a rendering perspective, display both a contact (e.g. data nodes D1 through Dk) and the associated primary contact number (e.g. child nodes C11 through Ck1). For example, when the user searches for “John” the result set 402 would contain D1 (John Adams) and C11 (John Adams' primary contact number), D2 (John Brown) and C21 (John Brown's primary contact number), up to and including Dk (John Doe) and Ck1 (John Doe's primary contact number). The user would have the option to either see other contact numbers for John Doe by descending down the tree, or directly making a call to the primary contact number initially presented.
If the user is interested in John Doe's mobile phone number, node CkJ, the user may discover the number using a text search or browse based navigation. In addition, if the user repetitively searches for or browses to node CkJ, the relevance weight assigned to this node would continue to strengthen with each repetitive action taken upon it. The increased relevance weight assigned to the node would be used to reorder the view of the navigation hierarchy from the user's perspective. As illustrated 401 prior to the learned preference and increased relevance weight, the node CkJ would be the jth entry presented in John Doe's list of contact numbers. As illustrated in 403, after the increased relevance weight is applied, node CkJ would bubble up to be the first entry within node Dk, e.g. becoming the first phone number in John Doe's contact folder. The result set 404 displayed for data node Dk (John Doe) would now present John Doe's mobile phone number as the first entry in the result set.
As illustrated in 405, node CkJ's weight would continue to strengthen with usage and eventually this node would become the first discoverable node in the phonebook list. After learning has taken place the result set 406 would have Dk (John Doe) and CkJ (John Doe's mobile number) as the first entry. The remainder of the result set, absent any other user selections, would contain D1 (John Adams) and C11 (John Adams' primary contact number), and D2 (John Brown) and C21 (John Brown's primary contact number).
Repetitive actions with regular patterns eventually result in the user not even having to do much. The relevant nodes receive an increased weight and the contact number would be rendered on the phone display at the appropriate time and location. It is important to note that this strengthening of the relevance weight of the node happens regardless of the type of navigation, either search or browse. Both result in the same form of reorganized view of the navigation hierarchy. For example, if the user always searches for John Doe and calls him, the increase in relevance weight of John Doe would result in John Doe being discovered with fewer characters. Finally, if the repetitive pattern is very regular, the text input step may even be eliminated. The first node in the phonebook context would contain John Doe's contact information and the user would just have to select the contact without entering any incremental text.
While the above illustration focuses on reordering for highly repetitive tasks, the system could also perform reordering of the user's view of the content space based on the broader knowledge of the user's tastes learned from the user's action patterns. For example, if the user always searches for action genre movies, then those movies could be given more relevance so as to be discovered more easily.
The time window identified for repetitive actions may be defined in advance or may be determined dynamically according to the frequency of the repetitive actions. For example, the time window may be set as 15-minute periods occurring during each day or the system may determine a larger window is appropriate for a particular day. The time window may also be differentiated by day of the week or date, e.g., different nodes may be of higher relevance during the week as compared to their relevance during the weekend. Finally, the system may interface with external applications and determine an ideal time window based on the data in the application. For example, the system may take data from a calendar application and boost the relevance of nodes based upon a weekly, monthly, or annual event (such as a birthday of a family member or a monthly project meeting).
Similarly, location of the user may influence the relevance of a node. For example, if the user is at work, the relevance of business contact information may be increased. Location may be determined by a variety of methods well known in the art, e.g., the user's device may have GPS capabilities.
Personalized Navigation Based on the User's Relationship to the Information Hierarchy
When the user 904 searches for a particular person by entering text, e.g., “TOM”, the system automatically lists the results in descending order of the proximity of the matched employee(s) in relationship to the user's position in the hierarchy. However, after learning, the nodes that are immediate descendents to the user's node may trump the user's sibling nodes, since the immediate descendents may be direct reports. Additionally, if the user 904 is discovering the information using an incremental search, e.g., “TO”, results may be shown with matches from different nodes as clusters for each level with one match displayed with the aggregate node (e.g. TOM CLANCY at Level 1, TOM CRAWFORD Level 3, TOM DALTON level 0). The system may provide a means to navigate these aggregate nodes, so the user can quickly get to any level. If the user is navigating the tree purely by a browse means, then the employees at the user's level (or his immediate reports) will be listed first as aggregates followed by other levels. This form of navigation would be more user-friendly than a pure lexicographically ordered browse tree.
The user search experience is also improved, in comparison to pure organization based clustering, by reordering the information hierarchy to match the user's repetitive action behavior. For example, if the user 904 repetitively navigates to a sibling node to perform an action (e.g. navigating to the node for Tom Jones 903 to place a phone call), then the ordering of the user's siblings would be adjusted over time to reduce this navigation distance by bringing that node closer to the user. This approach can also be used for any node that is at any level. For example, if the user 904 always navigates to the node for Tom Clancy 902 to place a phone call, then that node is reordered at its own level to come up quicker. Additionally with time, the nodes that are frequently visited in the hierarchy would move closer to the user's home node 904.
The navigation process within the corporate employee hierarchy tree could have been text-based search or browse based navigation. Over time the nodes that are frequently visited in the hierarchy would move closer to the user's home node within the hierarchy, thus easing their discovery either by search or browse. If the search were an incremental search, over time personalization would reduce the number of characters required for discovering the node. If the search was a browsed based navigation, over time personalization would reduce the number of user selections required for discovering the node.
In another embodiment of the invention the locus of relevance would always remain at the root of the organization hierarchy, with the user's nodes of interest hoisted to the root for easy access. This method of reordering would be meaningful for information finding in an entertainment space, where no prior knowledge of the user's interest is known, and hence there is no a priori relationship between the user and the content navigation hierarchy.
Another instance of automatic adjustment of circle of relevance is where the user is part of a defined group, for example, where the user is a member of an Instant Messaging group or an online community group, such as a Yahoo group. The system would automatically increase the relevance weights of the members of the group in relation to the user. Here the adjustment of the circle of relevance is done by the system merely by the participation of the user in these groups and no explicit action by the user is required. This is similar to the corporate setting where a user can be grouped with his or her peers, or where a user can be grouped with all other employees with offices on the same floor in a building.
Additionally, the system can take advantage of dynamic groups created for projects spanning employees in the corporate hierarchy. The members of these dynamically created groups would also move closer to the “locus of relevance” of the user. These groups could have been created explicitly in the corporate database, or the system may interface with external applications, such as a mailing list in an email application, in order to discover these dynamic groups. Once a dynamically created group is detected, again using the techniques described above, the relevance weights of the members of that group can be adjusted such that group members are returned higher in the result set, overriding the default corporate hierarchy. For example, after a new emailing list for a project is created, the relevance weights of the members of that project can be adjusted and the results would be ordered to return project members, then peers, then subordinates, then supervisors, and finally persons unrelated to the user in the corporate hierarchy.
Automatic adjustment of locus or circle of relevance would also be applied in a transitive manner between individuals or groups of individuals based on the actions of the individuals. For example, in a community, if a Susie calls Barbara often, and Barbara calls Kate often, then the likelihood of Susie calling Kate increases over time. Hence, when Susie makes a search or performs a browse, the relevance of ordering of Kate is increased, such that Susie can discover Kate more easily. In this case, when Susie navigates and selects the contact information for Barbara, the relevance weight for that node is adjusted. In addition, the relevance weights for any nodes that Barbara has selected, e.g. Kate, are also increased with respect to Susie. The contact information for both Barbara and Kate will now be returned higher in the result set for any subsequent searches by Susie.
In an embodiment of the invention the locus of relevance would also be adjusted over time by the system taking into account the actions taken by groups of individuals. For example, if members of two groups in an organization hierarchy communicate often with each other (e.g. the action taken by users in this case being making a phone call), then the two groups would come closer to each other in the navigation hierarchy. So when searches are done by a member of one of these groups, the system would give a higher relevance to people from the other group with which the communication was high—this would facilitate the discovery of the desired result with fewer characters in the case of incremental search. Similarly, in a browse based discovery, the other group would be found closer to the user's own group in the organization hierarchy.
For example, consider a corporate hierarchy where Able and Baker are members of the accounting department, Charlie and Dawn are members of the tax department, and Eugene is a member of the legal department. If Able calls Charlie on a regular basis then the accounting and tax departments become closer to each other in the navigation hierarchy. Here the relevance weights for all members of both departments are adjusted, not just those for Able and Charlie. So when Baker searches the corporate hierarchy members of the tax department will have a higher relevance than members of the legal department. This is due to the contacts, over time, between members of the two departments, e.g. the contacts between Able and Charlie, and the associated adjustments to the relevance weights for all members of both departments.
Having described preferred embodiments of the present invention, it should be apparent that modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the relative weighting of nodes has been used herein in the context of a phone book. However, embodiments of the invention can be implemented for any form of node based content space, such as genres of movies.
This application is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/765,335, filed on Feb. 12, 2013, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Relationships, which is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/479,820, filed on May 24, 2012, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Relationships, which is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/336,660, filed on Dec. 23, 2011, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,069, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/034,034, filed on Feb. 24, 2011, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,086,602, which is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/326,485 filed on Dec. 2, 2008, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,899,806, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/738,101 filed on Apr. 20, 2007, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,461,061, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/793,537, entitled A System and Method for Personalized Navigation and Discovery of Information on Input and Display Constrained Devices, filed Apr. 20, 2006, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/793,540, entitled A System and Method for Personalized Navigation and Discovery of Information Utilizing Users Relationship to the Information Hierarchy on Input and Display Constrained Devices, filed Apr. 20, 2006, the contents of all of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
252873 | Freese | Jan 1882 | A |
1261167 | Russell | Apr 1918 | A |
4045777 | Mierzwinski et al. | Aug 1977 | A |
4453217 | Boivie | Jun 1984 | A |
4760528 | Levin | Jul 1988 | A |
4797855 | Duncan, IV et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4893238 | Venema | Jan 1990 | A |
5224060 | Ma | Jun 1993 | A |
5337347 | Halstead-Nussloch et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5369605 | Parks | Nov 1994 | A |
5487616 | Ichbiah | Jan 1996 | A |
5532754 | Young et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5557686 | Brown et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5623406 | Ichbiah | Apr 1997 | A |
5635989 | Rothmuller | Jun 1997 | A |
5732216 | Logan et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5745889 | Burrows | Apr 1998 | A |
5774588 | Li | Jun 1998 | A |
5802361 | Wang et al. | Sep 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 |
5872834 | Teitelbaum | Feb 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 |
6041311 | Chislenko et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047300 | Walfish et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6075526 | Rothmuller | Jun 2000 | A |
6133909 | Schein et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6169984 | Bogdan | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6184877 | Dodson et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189002 | Roitblat | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6204848 | Nowlan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6223059 | Haestrup | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6239794 | Yuen et al. | May 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 |
6292804 | Ardoin et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6307548 | Flinchem et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6307549 | King et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6360215 | Judd et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377945 | Risvik | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6383080 | Link et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6385602 | Tso et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6388714 | Schein et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6392640 | Will | May 2002 | B1 |
6438579 | Hosken et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438751 | Voyticky et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6463586 | Jerding | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466933 | Huang et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6529903 | Smith | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6543052 | Ogasawara | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564213 | Ortega et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6564313 | Kashyap | May 2003 | B1 |
6564378 | Satterfield et al. | 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 |
6631496 | Li et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6662177 | Martino et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6664980 | Bryan et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6708336 | Bruette | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721954 | Nickum | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732369 | Schein et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6734881 | Will | May 2004 | B1 |
6735695 | Gopalakrishnan et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6756997 | Ward, III et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757906 | Look et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766526 | Ellis | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772147 | Wang | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785671 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801909 | Delgado et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6835602 | Norskov et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6839702 | Patel et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6839705 | Grooters | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850693 | Young et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865575 | Smith | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6865746 | Herrington et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6907273 | Smethers | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6965374 | Villet et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6999959 | Lawrence et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7013304 | Schuetze et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7117207 | Kerschberg et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7130866 | Schaffer | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7136845 | Chandrasekar et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7136854 | Smith | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146627 | Ismail et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7149983 | Robertson et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7165098 | Boyer et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7185335 | Hind et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7191238 | Uchida | Mar 2007 | B2 |
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 |
7451470 | Zimmerman | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7461061 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7487151 | Yamamoto et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7509313 | Colledge et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7529741 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7529744 | Srivastava et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7536384 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7536854 | Da-Silva et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7539676 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7548915 | Ramer et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7594244 | Scholl et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7644054 | Garg et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657526 | Aravamudan et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7679534 | Kay et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680882 | Tiu, Jr. et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7683886 | Willey | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7685197 | Fain et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7712053 | Bradford et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7725485 | Sahami et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7725486 | Tsuzuki et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7739280 | Aravamudan et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7756895 | Emigh | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7757250 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7774294 | Aravamudan et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7774341 | Aravamudan et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7779011 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7788266 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7792815 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7835998 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7904924 | de Heer et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
8046801 | Ellis et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8107397 | Bagchi et al. | Jan 2012 | B1 |
20010044759 | Kutsumi et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
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 |
20020116291 | Grasso et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120925 | Logan | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020133481 | Smith et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020144267 | Gutta et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020152190 | Biebesheimer et al. | Oct 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 |
20030037333 | Ghashghai et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046698 | Kamen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051240 | Schaffer et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055894 | Yeager et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030066068 | Gutta et al. | Apr 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 |
20030103088 | Dresti et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135464 | Mourad et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154138 | Phillips et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030217121 | Willis | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030226146 | Thurston et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229900 | Reisman | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237096 | Barrett et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040013909 | Shimizu et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040021691 | Dostie et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040024777 | Schaffer | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034652 | Hofmann et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040046744 | Rafii et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040049783 | Lemmons et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054520 | Dehlinger 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 |
20040155908 | Wagner | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040163032 | Guo et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040194141 | Sanders | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205065 | Petras et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040216160 | Lemmons et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220926 | Lamkin et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040221308 | Cuttner et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040231003 | Cooper et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040254911 | Grasso et al. | Dec 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 |
20050097170 | Zhu et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125307 | Hunt et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050129199 | Abe | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050174333 | Robinson et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050187945 | Ehrich 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 |
20050267994 | Wong et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278175 | Hyvonen | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283468 | Kamvar et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010477 | Yu | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060010503 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013487 | Longe et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015906 | Boyer et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020662 | Robinson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036640 | Tateno et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041843 | Billsus 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 |
20060090812 | Summerville | May 2006 | A1 |
20060098899 | King et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101499 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101503 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101504 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106782 | Blumenau et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112162 | Marot et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060117019 | Sylthe et al. | Jun 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 |
20060173818 | Berstis et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060176283 | Suraqui | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184989 | Slothouber | 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 |
20060242178 | Butterfield et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242607 | Hudson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248078 | Gross et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060248573 | Pannu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060256070 | Moosavi et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060256078 | Flinchem et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259344 | Patel et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259479 | Dai | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060261021 | Stagnaro | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271552 | McChesney et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060274051 | Longe et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282856 | Errico et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005526 | Whitney et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070005563 | Aravamudan et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070005576 | Cutrell et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016476 | Hoffberg et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016862 | Kuzmin | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070027852 | Howard et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027861 | Huentelman et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027871 | Arbajian | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043750 | Dingle | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070044122 | Scholl et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050337 | Venkataraman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050348 | Aharoni et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061244 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061317 | Ramer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061321 | Venkataraman et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061753 | Ng et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061754 | Ardhanari et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070064626 | Evans | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067272 | Flynt et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074131 | Assadollahi | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088681 | Aravamudan et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094024 | Kristensson et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100650 | Ramer et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070121843 | Atazky et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070130128 | Garg et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143567 | Gorobets | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150606 | Flinchem et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070174249 | James | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070182595 | Ghasabian | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070199025 | Angiolillo et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208613 | Backer | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070208718 | Javid et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219984 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219985 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226649 | Agmon | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240045 | Fux et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070242178 | Kawasaki et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070255693 | Ramaswamy et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070256070 | Bykov 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 |
20070288456 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288457 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080016240 | Balandin | 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 |
20080109401 | Sareen et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114743 | Venkataraman et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134043 | Georgis et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177717 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209229 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080255977 | Altberg et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275719 | Davis et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080313564 | Barve et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090077496 | Aravamudan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090112989 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090151002 | Zuniga et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090164263 | Marlow et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090198688 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090217203 | Aravamudan et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090271358 | Lindahl et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100030578 | Siddique et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100030638 | Davis, III et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100121845 | Aravamudan et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153380 | Garg et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100241625 | Aravamudan et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100293160 | Aravamudan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100306194 | Evans | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100325111 | Aravamudan et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110043652 | King et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047213 | Manuel | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110076994 | Kim et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110113249 | Gelbard et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110137789 | Kortina et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110179081 | Ovsjanikov et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120042386 | Backer | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120221505 | Evans et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120226761 | Emigh et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
181058 | May 1986 | EP |
1050794 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1143691 | Oct 2001 | EP |
1338967 | Aug 2003 | EP |
1338976 | Aug 2003 | EP |
1458193 | Sep 2004 | EP |
1463307 | Sep 2004 | EP |
1622054 | Feb 2006 | EP |
1810120 | Jul 2007 | EP |
1810508 | Jul 2007 | EP |
1841219 | Oct 2007 | EP |
1955130 | Aug 2008 | EP |
2016513 | Jan 2009 | EP |
2062171 | May 2009 | EP |
2002108918 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2003250146 | Sep 2003 | JP |
2005505070 | Feb 2005 | JP |
2005520268 | Jul 2005 | JP |
2005338933 | Dec 2005 | JP |
2006024212 | Jan 2006 | JP |
2006510270 | Mar 2006 | JP |
2007158925 | Jun 2007 | JP |
2007274605 | Oct 2007 | JP |
2009534761 | Sep 2009 | JP |
2010-503931 | Feb 2010 | JP |
WO-9856173 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-0070505 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO-0146843 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO-03030528 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO-2004010326 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO-2004031931 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO-2004054264 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO-2004052010 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO-2005033967 | Apr 2005 | WO |
WO-2005054982 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO-2005084235 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO-2005084235 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO-2006052959 | May 2006 | WO |
WO-2006052966 | May 2006 | WO |
WO-2006074305 | Jul 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-2008063987 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO-2008148012 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO-2009070193 | Jun 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ardissono, L. et al., “User Modeling and Recommendation Techniques for Personalized Electronic Program Guides,” Personalized Digital Television, Editors: Ardissono, et al., Kluwer Academic Press, 2004 (27 pages). |
Benes, V.E., “Mathematical Theory of Connecting Networks and Telephone Traffic,” Academic Press, NY, 1965 (4 pages). |
Dalianis, “Improving search engine retrieval using a compound splitter for Swedish,” Abstract of presentation at Nodalida 2005—15th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, Joensuu Finland, May 21-22, 2005. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2006 from http://phon.joensuu.fi/nodalida/abstracts/03.shtml, 3 pages. |
Digital Video Broadcasting, http://www.dvb.org (Oct. 12, 2007) (2 pages). |
Duff, I.S. et al., “Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices,” Monographs on Numerical Analysis, Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986 (7 pages). |
Gadd, Phonix: The Algorith, Program, vol. 24(4), Oct. 1990 (pp. 363-369). |
Garey, M.R. et al., “Computers and Intractability a Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,” W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1979 (2 pages). |
Good, N. et al., Combining Collaborative Filtering with Personal Agents for Better Recommendations, in Proc. of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 439-446, Orlando, Florida, Jul. 18-22, 1999. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/040005 mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (8 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2005/040415, dated Nov. 27, 2006, 6 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2005/040517, mailed Jun. 13, 2008, 4 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/025249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008, 6 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/033204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/033257, dated Mar. 26, 2008, 5 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/067114, dated Jul. 2, 2008, 6 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/068064, dated Jul. 7, 2008, 9 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/084500, dated May 20, 2008, 6 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2008/064730, dated Sep. 8, 2008, 5 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/065703 mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (5 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2005/040424, mailing date of Nov. 21, 2006, 6 pages. |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/033258, mailed Mar. 26, 2008 (6 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/067100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (5 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2006/045053, mailed Jul. 24, 2004 (10 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2008/051789, mailed Jul. 14, 2008 (7 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2007/078490, mailed Jul. 3, 2008 (6 pages). |
International Search and Written Opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2012/034780, dated Jul. 16, 2012 (2 pages). |
Kurapati, et al., “A Multi-Agent TV Recommender,” In Proceedings of the UM 2001 Workshop “Personalization in Future TV,” 2001, 8 pages. |
Lindgren, B.W. et al., “Introduction to Probability and Statistics,” MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1978 (23 pages). |
Luenberger, D.G., “Linear and Nonlinear Pogramming,” Second Ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1989 (51 pages). |
Mackenzie et al. “Letterwise: Prefix-Based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology—UIST 2001” (pp. 111-120). |
Matthom, “Text Highlighting in Search Results”, Jul. 22, 2005. Retrieved from www.matthom.com/archive/2005/07/22/text-highlighting-in-search-results on Jun. 23, 2006 (4 pages). |
Mokotoff, Soundexing and Genealogy, Retrieved from www.avotaynu.com/soundex.html on Mar. 19, 2008 (6 pages). |
Murray et al., “Inferring Demographic Attributes of Anonymous Internet Users,” WEBKDD '99 LNAI, 1836, pp. 7-20, 2000. |
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. |
Nemhauser, G.L. et al., “Integer and Combinational Optimization,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988 (2 pages). |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Jul. 8, 2008, 30 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Mar. 3, 2009, 26 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Sep. 17, 2009, 34 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 (4 pages). |
Review of Personalization Technologies: Collaborative Filtering vs. ChoiceStream's Attributized Bayesian Choice Modeling, Technology Brief, ChoiceStream Technologies, Cambridge, MA, Feb. 2004, 13 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 (17 pages). |
Silfverberg et al. “Predicting Text Entry Speed on Mobile Phones.” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI 2000. (pp. 9-16). |
Supplemental European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP05826129.8, dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP06838179.7, dated Dec. 9, 2009, 7 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP07761026.9 dated Jan. 28, 2010, 8 pages. |
Supplemental European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP07842499, dated Aug. 26, 2010, 6 pages. |
Supplemental Partial European Search Report for EP05826114.0 dated Aug. 20, 2009, 13 pages. |
Talbot, David. “Soul of a New Mobile Machine.” Technology Review May/Jun. 2007. (pp. 46-53). |
Turski, et al., “Inner Circle—People Centered Email Client,” CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sysems, Apr. 2005, pp. 1845-1848, 4 pages. |
Villani, et al., Keystroke Biometric Recognition Studies on Long-Text Input under Ideal and Application-Oriented Conditions, Proceedings of Student/Faculty Research Day, CSIS, Pace University, May, 2006, pp. C3.1-C3.8. |
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. |
Villani, et al., Keystroke Biometric Recognition Studies on Long-Text Input under Ideal and Application-Oriented Conditions, Proceedings of Student/Faculty Research Day, CSIS, Pace University, May 2006, pp. C3.1-C3.8, retrieved from URL: <http://www.csis.pace.edu/-ctappert/srd2006/c3.pdf>, p. 6, para 6. |
Wikipedia's entry for Levenshtein distance (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 15, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein—distance (9 pages). |
Zimmerman, et al., “TV Personalization System Design of a TV Show Recommender Engine and Interface,” In Liliana Ardissono, Alfred Kobsa, Mark Maybury (eds) Personalized Digital Television: Targeting Programs to Individual Viewers, Kluwer: 27-52; 2004, 29 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/332,244, filed Jun. 11, 1999, Ellis et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/324,202, filed Dec. 29, 2005, Yates, Douglas. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,549, filed Apr. 27, 2006, Ellis et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/541,299, filed Sep. 29, 2006, Shannon et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/548,589, filed Feb. 27, 2004, Flinchem et al. |
A Model of a Trust-Based Recommendation System on a Social Network—Published Date: Oct. 18, 2007. |
C. de Kerchove and P. Dooren. The PageTrust Algorithm: how to rank web pages when negative links are allowed? In Proc. SIAM Int. Conf. on Data Mining, pp. 346-352, 2008. |
Computing and Applying Trust in Web-Based Social Networks—Published Date: Apr. 11, 2005. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US06/25249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (7 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US06/33204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (6 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (8 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (5 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (6 pages). |
International Search Report, International Patent Application No. PCT/US07/67114, mailed Jul. 2, 2008 (6 pages). |
J. Kunegis, A. Lornrnatzsch, and C. Bauckhage. The slashdot zoo: mining a social network with negative edges. In WWW '09: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, pp. 741-750, 2009. |
L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report, Stanford University, 1998. |
Office Action issued Jul. 21, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/986,461. |
Office Action issued Jul. 8, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/986,463. |
Guha, R., et al, “Propagation of Trust and Distrust” , WWW2004, May 17-22, 2004, pp. 403-412. |
S. Kamvar, M. Schlosser, and H. Garcia-Molina. The EigenTrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In Proc. Int. Conf. on World Wide Web, pp. 640651, 2003. |
Trust- and Distrust-Based Recommendations for Controversial Reviews—Published Date: 2009. |
Trust-Based Recommendations for Publications—A Multi-Layer Network Approach—Published Date: 2006. |
Trust-Based Recommendation Systems: An Axiomatic Approach—Published Date: Apr. 21-25, 2008. |
J. Kleinberg, Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 46(5):604-632, 1999. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/738,138, filed Apr. 20, 2007. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140156680 A1 | Jun 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60793537 | Apr 2006 | US | |
60793540 | Apr 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13765335 | Feb 2013 | US |
Child | 14175189 | US | |
Parent | 13479820 | May 2012 | US |
Child | 13765335 | US | |
Parent | 13336660 | Dec 2011 | US |
Child | 13479820 | US | |
Parent | 13034034 | Feb 2011 | US |
Child | 13336660 | US | |
Parent | 12326485 | Dec 2008 | US |
Child | 13034034 | US | |
Parent | 11738101 | Apr 2007 | US |
Child | 12326485 | US |