Within Internet message handling services, electronic mail messages are transferred from one computer to another using a client-server application architecture. When an e-mail server has to deal with bursts of e-mail traffic, it typically utilizes first in first out (FIFO) queuing to process messages in the order they are received. This may cause problems for the e-mail server. For example, a more active sender may cause messages from all other senders to be queued if FIFO were the only mechanism that determines the order and priority of message processing in the e-mail server.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter. Nor is this Summary intended to be used to limit the claimed subject matter's scope.
Message prioritization may be provided. First, a message may be received and a priority level may be calculated for the message. If the message is not rejected for having a priority level lower than a predetermined threshold, the message may be placed in a first priority queue. Next, the message may be de-queued from the first priority queue based upon the calculated priority level for the message. Distribution group recipients corresponding to the message may then be expanded and the priority level for the message may be re-calculated based upon the expanded distribution group recipients. Next, the message may be placed in a second priority queue. The message may then be de-queued from the second priority queue based upon the re-calculated priority level for the message and delivered.
Both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description provide examples and are explanatory only. Accordingly, the foregoing general description and the following detailed description should not be considered to be restrictive. Further, features or variations may be provided in addition to those set forth herein. For example, embodiments may be directed to various feature combinations and sub-combinations described in the detailed description.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this disclosure, illustrate various embodiments of the present invention. In the drawings:
The following detailed description refers to the accompanying drawings. Wherever possible, the same reference numbers are used in the drawings and the following description to refer to the same or similar elements. While embodiments of the invention may be described, modifications, adaptations, and other implementations are possible. For example, substitutions, additions, or modifications may be made to the elements illustrated in the drawings, and the methods described herein may be modified by substituting, reordering, or adding stages to the disclosed methods. Accordingly, the following detailed description does not limit the invention. Instead, the proper scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims.
With conventional systems, prioritization of e-mail messages may be performed based on the “X-Priority:” MIME header that communicates a sender's prioritization intent to recipients and/or transmitting e-mail servers. While conventional e-mail servers may choose to honor such headers, in most cases it cannot be used to provide fair e-mail server resource allocation and processing order because: i) e-mail senders are not aware of other messages competing for server resources; and ii) in many cases e-mail senders cannot be trusted and may intentionally try to abuse the system.
When a conventional e-mail server has to deal with bursts of e-mail traffic and cannot immediately process all incoming messages in parallel, it typically utilizes FIFO queuing to process messages in the order they are received. However, in many cases the order of incoming messages does not translate to a fair allocation of e-mail server resources and the order of delivery. An example situation that may result in an unfair allocation may be when a very active sender causes messages from other senders to be queued behind his/her messages and thus consume disproportional amount of resources comparing to the other senders. Similarly, in a multi-tenant e-mail system, an e-mail traffic disparity between different tenants may result in unfair resource allocation between those tenants. Moreover, a larger message may take more resources than other messages or message with a specific type of attachment may be much more expensive to scan for viruses.
Consistent with embodiments of the invention, message priority based on various characteristics of the message may be calculated. Then the calculated priority may be used to determine the order of subsequent processing of the message relative to other messages to achieve a fair resource allocation across different users. The calculated priority may also be used to determine which messages to accept or reject in situations when the queuing capacity is reached.
Embodiments of the invention may use multiple priority queues and are not limited to just two priority queues. With these multiple priority queues, embodiments of the invention may process and re-prioritize a message multiple times before delivery or relay. For example, a message may come in as fresh, but get blocked on a server for a while and become stale. At one point, embodiments of the invention may lower the message's priority after it has gone in a second queue.
Consistent with embodiments of the invention, the number of priority queues, the number of re-prioritization states that take place, and the number of processing states may vary between different embodiments. For example, a message may go through N states of processing with M priority queues between those states and K “priority calculators”. The N states of processing may comprise various different types of processing and are not limited to any particular type of processing. While embodiments of the invention are not so limited, one example may be the ability to calculate priority before SMTP response is sent out and making a decision on whether to accept or reject the message based on that priority.
Message prioritization may be provided. Consistent with embodiments of the invention, a message transfer agent (MTA) may operate on message server 115 to facilitate the passage of messages (e.g. e-mail) between first processor 105 and second processor 110 over network 120. The MTA may calculate priority of a message based on various message characteristics such as sender, recipients, authentication level, message size, etc. The calculated priority may then be used by the MTA to prioritize further processing and delivery/relay of the message relative to other messages in the MTA's pipeline. The calculated priority can also be used as a reason to temporarily reject a given message, which may allow the MTA to allocate more resources to processing higher priority messages.
Consistent with embodiments of the invention, message priority may be calculated based on various message characteristics. The calculated message priority may then be used to determine the order (e.g. priority) of further processing and relay/delivery of the message. The calculated priority may also be used to decide whether to accept or reject the message. Embodiments of the invention may also include an extensibility model to allow custom classification algorithms to determine priorities. Moreover, embodiments of the invention may include a classification system that may be layered on top of priority queuing and health-based throttling (e.g. backpressure), where one layer can be changed independent of the others.
As shown in
After the message is received (state 205), message server 115 may calculate a priority level for the received message based on the received message's characteristics. (State 210.) The priority level for the received message may comprise any index by which messages may be proved with a priority level. For example, the message may be designated with a “high”, medium”, or “low” priority level. The message may be given an index between 1 and 10 or between “A” and “Z”. Notwithstanding, a priority level may be calculated and assigned to the received message. The calculated priority level may indicate the received message's priority.
The message's characteristics from which the priority level may be calculated may comprise, but are not limited to, direct characteristics and aggregated characteristics. Direct characteristics may comprise, but are not limited to, the message's size, the presence of a specific attachment type to the message, an authentication level of the message's sender, a number of recipients the message has, whether one of the recipients the message has is a distribution group, whether the message is “fresh” verses “delayed”, or whether the message is being aggregated from a secondary account verses a regular message. Regarding the message's size direct characteristic, where the message is larger than a configurable threshold, the message may be assigned a lower priority. Regarding the message's “fresh” verses “delayed” direct characteristics, if the message was sent over a time period (e.g. 30 min.) ago, it may be marked as low priority. Another direct characteristic may comprise whether the message is associated with a user (e.g. sender and/or receiver) who is paying for the e-mail service or is receiving the e-mail service for free.
Aggregated characteristics may comprise, for example, a sender threshold. The sender threshold may comprise, but is not limited to, a number of recipients, a number of messages sent, and a total size of messages sent, for example. In this case, when a specific sender reaches a threshold on the number of messages submitted to message server 115 over a time period (e.g. the last minute), all other messages from the sender may be assigned a lower priority until the sender becomes inactive for some period of time. Other examples of the aggregated characteristics may comprise: i) tenant organization activity in a given time interval in a multi-tenant e-mail system; ii) aggregated usage of a specific resource by a sender/tenant; and iii) number of messages recently delivered to recipients of the message. A tenant organization activity may comprise an e-mail service for multiple organizations is hosted in a cloud. In this situation, the same set of hardware and other resources may be shared between those organizations.
Once the priority of a message has been determined, it can be used by message server 115 in states of method 200 in cases when message server 115 may not have enough resources to process all messages in parallel. Such subsequent states may comprise, but not limited to, distribution group expansion (e.g. state 230), rules and policy enforcement, delivery to mailboxes, or relay to other servers. The resource allocation across different messages may be based on the accuracy of priority calculation in addition to the order the messages may have been received by message server 115.
Once the priority for the received message is calculated (state 210), message server 115 may decide whether to accept or temporarily reject the message. (State 215.) The decision whether to accept or temporarily reject the message may be based on the calculated priority and the current queuing capacity/resource usage. For example, message server 115 may calculate the message priority before the message is fully accepted from first processor 105. In this case message server 115 may make a decision on whether to accept the message based on the priority. When SMTP protocol is used for message transmission, such priority calculation may be done any time before message server 115 sends a response to the SMTP DATA command (or the last chunk of ESMTP BDAT command for example). This approach may be used when message server 115 has utilized certain percentages of its queuing capacity. For example, message server 115 may start temporarily rejecting (e.g. 4XX SMTP response code) (state 220) Low priority messages when it uses over 60% of its queuing capacity and start temporarily rejecting (state 220) Normal priority messages when it reaches 80% of its queuing capacity. If message server 115 accepts (and does not temporarily reject) the message, the message may be accepted and placed on a first priority queue. (State 225.) If the calculated priority level is too low, message server 115 may decide to not accept the message from the sending MTA/client (e.g. that is, reject the message). It may then be up to the sending MTA/client to handle, for example, the SMTP protocol reject and depending on the error code, provide a temporary hold and/or other alternatives.
After the message is placed on the first priority queue (state 225), message server 115 may de-queue the message from the first priority queue. The order by which message server 115 de-queues the message may be priority-aware and may not be strictly FIFO. For example, all the messages in the first priority queue may be assigned a priority level based upon based on the messages' characteristics. (State 210.) Message server 115 may de-queue the messages with a higher priority level before it de-queue the messages with a lower priority level. Within messages having the same priority level, FIFO may be applied.
Once dequeued, message server 115 may process the message by expanding any distribution group recipients the message may have. (State 230.) After the message is processed (state 230), message server 115 may determine message destinations for delivery/relay based, for example, on recipient addresses. (State 235.) Next, message server 115 may re-calculate the priority based, for example, on the recipient changes made when message server 115 expanded (state 230) any distribution group recipients. (State 240.) The priority may be re-calculated multiple times as the message is transformed by different states in message server 115. For example, a distribution group expansion may increase the number of recipients of the message. The number of recipients may be a characteristic that affects prioritization. Consequently, the message's priority may be recalculated after the distribution group expansion in state 230. This group expansion may be one example of what can affect the priority of messages in-flight and embodiments of the invention are not so limited.
Once message server 115 re-calculates the priority (state 240), message server 115 may place the message on a second priority queue for delivery/relay. (State 245.) This is another place where the order of further processing may be influenced by the priority and is not strictly FIFO.
After message server 115 places the message on the second priority queue (state 245), message server 115 may de-queue the message from the second priority queue. As described above, the order of de-queuing may be priority-aware and may not be strictly FIFO. Once de-queued, the message may be delivered/relayed to its destinations. (State 250.)
An embodiment consistent with the invention may comprise a system for providing prioritization. The system may comprise a memory storage and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage. The processing unit may be operative to receive a message, calculate a priority level for the message, and place the message in a first priority queue. Moreover, the processing unit may be operative to de-queue the message from the first priority queue based upon the calculated priority level for the message and expand distribution group recipients corresponding to the message. Furthermore, the processing unit may be operative to re-calculate the priority level for the message based upon the expanded distribution group recipients and place the message in a second priority queue. In addition, the processing unit may be operative to de-queue the message from the second priority queue based upon the re-calculated priority level for the message and deliver the message.
Another embodiment consistent with the invention may comprise a system for providing prioritization. The system may comprise a memory storage and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage. The processing unit may be operative to calculate a priority level for a message. The calculated priority level for the message may be based upon at least one of the following: direct characteristics of the message and aggregated characteristics of the message. Furthermore, the processing unit may be operative to place the message in a priority queue. In addition, the processing unit may be operative to de-queue the message from the priority queue based upon the calculated priority level for the message and deliver the message.
Yet another embodiment consistent with the invention may comprise a system for providing prioritization. The system may comprise a memory storage and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage. The processing unit may be operative to calculate a priority level for a message. The calculated priority level for the message may be based upon at least one direct characteristic of the message or at least one direct aggregated characteristic of the message. Moreover, the processing unit may be operative to place the message in a first priority queue and to de-queue the message from the first priority queue based upon the calculated priority level for the message. Furthermore, the processing unit may be operative to expand distribution group recipients corresponding to the message and to re-calculate the priority level for the message based upon the expanded distribution group recipients. In addition, the processing unit may be operative to place the message in a second priority queue, de-queue the message from the second priority queue based upon the re-calculated priority level for the message, and to deliver the message.
With reference to
Computing device 300 may have additional features or functionality. For example, computing device 300 may also include additional data storage devices (removable and/or non-removable) such as, for example, magnetic disks, optical disks, or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in
The term computer readable media as used herein may include computer storage media. Computer storage media may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. System memory 304, removable storage 309, and non-removable storage 310 are all computer storage media examples (i.e. memory storage). Computer storage media may include, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store information and which can be accessed by computing device 300. Any such computer storage media may be part of device 300. Computing device 300 may also have input device(s) 312 such as a keyboard, a mouse, a pen, a sound input device, a touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 314 such as a display, speakers, a printer, etc. may also be included. The aforementioned devices are examples and others may be used.
The term computer readable media as used herein may also include communication media. Communication media may be embodied by computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism, and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” may describe a signal that has one or more characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media may include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, radio frequency (RF), infrared, and other wireless media.
As stated above, a number of program modules and data files may be stored in system memory 304, including operating system 305. While executing on processing unit 302, programming modules 306 (e.g. message transfer agent application 320) may perform processes including, for example, one or more method 200's stages (i.e. states) as described above. The aforementioned process is an example, and processing unit 302 may perform other processes. Other programming modules that may be used in accordance with embodiments of the present invention may include electronic mail and contacts applications, word processing applications, spreadsheet applications, database applications, slide presentation applications, drawing or computer-aided application programs, etc.
Generally, consistent with embodiments of the invention, program modules may include routines, programs, components, data structures, and other types of structures that may perform particular tasks or that may implement particular abstract data types. Moreover, embodiments of the invention may be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. Embodiments of the invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
Furthermore, embodiments of the invention may be practiced in an electrical circuit comprising discrete electronic elements, packaged or integrated electronic chips containing logic gates, a circuit utilizing a microprocessor, or on a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors. Embodiments of the invention may also be practiced using other technologies capable of performing logical operations such as, for example, AND, OR, and NOT, including but not limited to mechanical, optical, fluidic, and quantum technologies. In addition, embodiments of the invention may be practiced within a general purpose computer or in any other circuits or systems.
Embodiments of the invention, for example, may be implemented as a computer process (method), a computing system, or as an article of manufacture, such as a computer program product or computer readable media. The computer program product may be a computer storage media readable by a computer system and encoding a computer program of instructions for executing a computer process. The computer program product may also be a propagated signal on a carrier readable by a computing system and encoding a computer program of instructions for executing a computer process. Accordingly, the present invention may be embodied in hardware and/or in software (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.). In other words, embodiments of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium having computer-usable or computer-readable program code embodied in the medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system. A computer-usable or computer-readable medium may be any medium that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
The computer-usable or computer-readable medium may be, for example but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, device, or propagation medium. More specific computer-readable medium examples (a non-exhaustive list), the computer-readable medium may include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, and a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM). Note that the computer-usable or computer-readable medium could even be paper or another suitable medium upon which the program is printed, as the program can be electronically captured, via, for instance, optical scanning of the paper or other medium, then compiled, interpreted, or otherwise processed in a suitable manner, if necessary, and then stored in a computer memory.
Embodiments of the present invention, for example, are described above with reference to block diagrams and/or operational illustrations of methods, systems, and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. The functions/acts noted in the blocks may occur out of the order as shown in any flowchart. For example, two blocks shown in succession may in fact be executed substantially concurrently or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality/acts involved.
While certain embodiments of the invention have been described, other embodiments may exist. Furthermore, although embodiments of the present invention have been described as being associated with data stored in memory and other storage mediums, data can also be stored on or read from other types of computer-readable media, such as secondary storage devices, like hard disks, floppy disks, or a CD-ROM, a carrier wave from the Internet, or other forms of RAM or ROM. Further, the disclosed methods' stages may be modified in any manner, including by reordering stages and/or inserting or deleting stages, without departing from the invention.
All rights including copyrights in the code included herein are vested in and the property of the Applicant. The Applicant retains and reserves all rights in the code included herein, and grants permission to reproduce the material only in connection with reproduction of the granted patent and for no other purpose.
While the specification includes examples, the invention's scope is indicated by the following claims. Furthermore, while the specification has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, the claims are not limited to the features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example for embodiments of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4570227 | Tachi | Feb 1986 | A |
4971434 | Ball | Nov 1990 | A |
5077668 | Doi | Dec 1991 | A |
5179519 | Adachi | Jan 1993 | A |
5220507 | Kirson | Jun 1993 | A |
5377354 | Scannell | Dec 1994 | A |
5493692 | Theimer | Feb 1996 | A |
5544321 | Theimer | Aug 1996 | A |
5555376 | Theimer | Sep 1996 | A |
5603054 | Theimer | Feb 1997 | A |
5608635 | Tamai | Mar 1997 | A |
5611050 | Theimer | Mar 1997 | A |
5617526 | Oran | Apr 1997 | A |
5634084 | Malsheen | May 1997 | A |
5671333 | Catlett | Sep 1997 | A |
5675733 | Williams | Oct 1997 | A |
5694616 | Johnson | Dec 1997 | A |
5796394 | Wicks et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5812865 | Theimer | Sep 1998 | A |
5826022 | Nielsen | Oct 1998 | A |
5826269 | Hussey | Oct 1998 | A |
5835881 | Trovato | Nov 1998 | A |
5850219 | Kumomura | Dec 1998 | A |
5864848 | Horvitz | Jan 1999 | A |
5905863 | Knowles | May 1999 | A |
5907839 | Roth | May 1999 | A |
5911773 | Mutsuga | Jun 1999 | A |
5917489 | Thurlow et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5935218 | Beyda | Aug 1999 | A |
5950187 | Tsuda | Sep 1999 | A |
5974465 | Wong | Oct 1999 | A |
5978837 | Foladare | Nov 1999 | A |
5995597 | Woltz | Nov 1999 | A |
6021403 | Horvitz | Feb 2000 | A |
6034970 | Levac | Mar 2000 | A |
6067565 | Horvitz | May 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078865 | Koyanagi | Jun 2000 | A |
6085216 | Huberman | Jul 2000 | A |
6101531 | Eggleston | Aug 2000 | A |
6119065 | Shimada | Sep 2000 | A |
6144942 | Ruckdashel | Nov 2000 | A |
6147977 | Thro | Nov 2000 | A |
6151623 | Harrison | Nov 2000 | A |
6161130 | Horvitz | Dec 2000 | A |
6182059 | Angotti | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185603 | Henderson | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189027 | Haneda | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192360 | Dumais | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195533 | Tkatch | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199102 | Cobb | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6212265 | Duphorne | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6212535 | Weikart et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216165 | Woltz | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6233430 | Helferich | May 2001 | B1 |
6267733 | Peterson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6282565 | Shaw | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6298304 | Theimer | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317592 | Campana | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321158 | DeLorme | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327581 | Platt | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339746 | Sugiyama | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6353398 | Amin | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363415 | Finney et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370526 | Agrawal | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381735 | Hunt | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385662 | Moon et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6396513 | Helfman | May 2002 | B1 |
6408277 | Nelken | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411930 | Burges | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411947 | Rice | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421708 | Bettis | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6421709 | McCormick | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424995 | Shuman | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6438545 | Beauregard et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442589 | Takahashi | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466232 | Newell | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477460 | Kepler | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6484197 | Donohue | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490574 | Bennett | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505150 | Nunberg | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6505167 | Horvitz | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6507866 | Barchi | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513026 | Horvitz | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513046 | Abbott | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6526350 | Sekiyama | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6532489 | Merchant | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6549915 | Abbott | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6549944 | Weinberg | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553358 | Horvitz | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6557036 | Kavacheri | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6584502 | Natarajan | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6618716 | Horvitz | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6622089 | Hasegawa | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6622160 | Horvitz | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629123 | Hunt | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6654343 | Brandis et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658485 | Baber et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6672506 | Swartz | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6694252 | Ukita | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6714967 | Horvitz | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6728635 | Sakamoto | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6732149 | Kephart | May 2004 | B1 |
6741188 | Miller | May 2004 | B1 |
6747675 | Abbott | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748225 | Kepler | Jun 2004 | B1 |
D494584 | Schlieffers et al. | Aug 2004 | S |
6791580 | Abbott | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6796505 | Pellaumail et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6801223 | Abbott et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6812937 | Abbott et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6837436 | Swartz et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6842877 | Robarts et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6886002 | Horvitz | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6898518 | Padmanabhan | May 2005 | B2 |
6944278 | Nielsen | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6952647 | Hasegawa et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6980993 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6999993 | Shah et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003525 | Horvitz et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7010501 | Roslak et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7040541 | Swartz et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7063263 | Swartz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7076241 | Zondervan | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7103473 | Ranjan | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7120865 | Horvitz et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7171378 | Petrovich | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7194681 | Horvitz | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7195157 | Swartz et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7233933 | Horvitz et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7233954 | Horvitz | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7327708 | Komandur et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337181 | Horvitz | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7385501 | Miller | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7409423 | Horvitz et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7461129 | Shah et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7565403 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7664249 | Horvitz et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7689521 | Nodelman et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7743340 | Horvitz et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7797267 | Horvitz | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7844666 | Horvitz et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7877686 | Abbott et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7975015 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8024415 | Horvitz et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8166392 | Horvitz | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8254380 | Boucard et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
20010007968 | Shimazu | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010025223 | Geiger et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010030664 | Shulman et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010040590 | Abbott et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010040591 | Abbott et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042087 | Kephart et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010043231 | Abbott et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010043232 | Abbott et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020002450 | Nunberg et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020007356 | Rice et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020032689 | Abbott, III et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038294 | Matsugu | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020044152 | Abbott, III et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052930 | Abbott et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020052963 | Abbott et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020054117 | van Dantzich et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020054130 | Abbott, III et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020054174 | Abbott et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078204 | Newell et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080155 | Abbott et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080156 | Abbott et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020080888 | Shu et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083025 | Robarts et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083158 | Abbott et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087525 | Abbott et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020087649 | Horvitz | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099681 | Gainey et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099817 | Abbott et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020154210 | Ludwig et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020159575 | Skladman et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164998 | Younis | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020173905 | Jin | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020186823 | Kikinis et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020191034 | Sowizral et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030014491 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023571 | Barnhill | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030046401 | Abbott et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030154476 | Abbott, III et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167311 | Kirsch | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182052 | DeLorme et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182383 | He | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030212646 | Horvitz | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030236745 | Hartsell et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040015557 | Horvitz | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040070602 | Kobuya et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040172483 | Horvitz | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040201500 | Miller et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050034078 | Abbott et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065632 | Douglis | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050081059 | Bandini et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050204009 | Hazarika et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050266858 | Miller et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050272442 | Miller et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060017983 | Syri et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060019676 | Miller et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031062 | Bakis et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041583 | Horvitz | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060212220 | Bou-Ghannam et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060271277 | Hu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277474 | Robarts et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011314 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20080090591 | Miller et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091537 | Miller et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080161018 | Miller et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090006574 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090013052 | Robarts et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090094240 | Bordeaux et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119385 | Horvitz | May 2009 | A1 |
20090157834 | Krishnaswamy | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090259713 | Blumrich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100030865 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100138511 | Guo et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100185665 | Horn | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217811 | Kay | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100228833 | Duquette et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110071964 | Horvitz | Mar 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
HEI 04-280535 | Oct 1992 | JP |
HEI 05-233195 | Sep 1993 | JP |
HEI 06-120978 | Apr 1994 | JP |
HEI 08-140158 | May 1996 | JP |
HEI 08-331621 | Dec 1996 | JP |
HEI 10-079756 | Mar 1998 | JP |
HEI 10-269154 | Oct 1998 | JP |
HEI 10-283291 | Oct 1998 | JP |
HEI 11-017839 | Jan 1999 | JP |
HEI 11-32144 | Feb 1999 | JP |
HEI 11-127259 | May 1999 | JP |
WO 9800787 | Jan 1998 | WO |
WO 9803907 | Jan 1998 | WO |
WO 9825195 | Jun 1998 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“XCON: Cannot Configure MTA to Provide Adequate Message Control,” Revision: 4.2, Published Date: Oct. 27, 2006, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/186714, pp. 1-3. |
Minh Tran, “FreeBSD server anti-spam software using automated TCP connection control,” CAIA Technical Report 040326A, Mar. 2004, http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/040326A/CAIA-TR-040326A.pdf, pp. 1-13. |
“Symantec Brightmail Gateway v8.0,” Technical Brief: Messaging Security, Retrieved Date: Sep. 23, 2010, http://eval.symantec.com/mktginfo/enterprise/white—papers/b-brightmai—gateway—8—WP—14552102-2.en-us.pdf, pp. 1-31. |
Shin Maruyama et al., “Priority Control in Receiving E-mails by Giving a Separate Response to Each DNS Query,” Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT'06), IEEE Computer Society, http://ieeexpiore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01581317, 4 pgs. |
[No Author Listed], “IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Method of rule-based file, window, and message processing”, vol. 38, No. 7, Jul. 1, 1995. |
[No Author Listed], “Mapmyindia Rocks Indian Web2.0 with GoogleMap Type Digitised Maps,” http://www.webyantra.net/tag/mashup/, last accessed Mar. 16, 2007, 7 pages. |
[No Author Listed], “PDA Toshiba,” http://www.citynotebookcentre.com.au/Products/PDA&CELU/Toshiba/toshiba—pda—e740.htm, last accessed Mar. 16, 2007, 3 pages. |
[No Author Listed], “Visual Warbling to subtly indicate status conditions”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulleting, vol. 41, No. 1, 1998, pp. 611-613. |
Apte, Chidanand et al., “Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 1994, pp. 233-251, vol. 12, Issue 13. |
Billinghurst, Mark et al., “An Evaluation of Wearable Information Spaces”, Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1998, 8 pages. |
Billinghurst, Mark et al., “Wearable Devices: New Ways to Manage Information”, IEEE Computer Society, Jan. 1999, pp. 57-64. |
Billinghurst, Mark, “Research Directions in Wearable Computing”, University of Washington, May 1998, 48 pages. |
Boone, Gary, “Concept Features in Re: Agent, an Intelligent Email Agent”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 141-148, 1998. |
Breese, J. et al., “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering”, In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 43-52, 1998, Auai, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. |
Chen, Guanling et al., “A Survey of Context-Aware Mobile Computing Research”, Dartmouth Computer Science Technical Report, 2000, 16 pages. |
Cohen, W., “Learning Rules that Classify E-Mail”, 1996, AAAI Spring Symposium on ML and IR, 1996, accessed at http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1996/Ss-96-05/SS96-05-003.pdf, 8 pages. |
Crawford, Elisabeth, et al., “An Intelligent Interface for Sorting Electronic Mail”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 182-183, 2002. |
Czerwinski, M. et al., “Visualizing implicit queries for information management and retrieval”, In Proceedings of CHI '99, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 560-567, 1999, Association for Computing Machinery. |
Dumais, Susan, et al., “Inductive Learning Algorithms and Representations for Text Categorization”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 1998. pp. 148-155, ACM Press, New York, NY. |
Eugenio et al., “Generating driving directions for intelligent vehicles interfaces”, 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2005, 8 pages. |
European Notice of Allowance in Application 00952285.5, mailed Jun. 9, 2006, 11 pgs. |
Forscher, Stewart, “CyberNag (Mailmen Division) Project Notebook”, accessed at: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/classes/cs3302—96—winter/projects/groups/Mai1Men/, last accessed on Feb. 9, 2004, 14 pages. |
Habel, “Incremental Generation of Multimodal Route Instructions”, http://www.cs.niu.edu/-nlgdial/final/SS703CHabel .pdf, last access Dec. 11, 2008, 8 pages, Hamburg Germany. |
Hampe et al., “Integrating topographic information and landmarks for mobile navigation”, http://www.ikg.uni-hannover.de/publikationen/publikationen/2003/wien—hampe—elias.pdf, last accessed Mar. 14, 2007, 13 pages. |
Harter, Andy et al., “A Distributed Location System for the Active Office”, IEEE Network, 1994, pp. 62-70. |
Heckerman, David, “A Tutorial on Learning With Bayesian Networks”, Microsoft Research, Nov. 1996, 57 pages. |
Horvitz et al., “Attention-Sensitive Alerting in Computing Systems”, Microsoft Research, Aug. 1999. |
Horvitz et al., “Attention-Sensitive Alerting”, In Proceedings of UAI '99, Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence, Sweden Jul. 1999, p. 305-313. |
Horvitz, E. et al., “Display of information for time-critical decision making”, In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 296-305 Montreal, 1995, Canada. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. |
Horvitz, E., “Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces”, In Proceedings of CHI '99, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 159-166, 1999, Association for Computing Machinery. |
Horvitz, E., et al., “The Lumiere project: Bayesian user modeling for inferring the goals and needs of software users”, In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 256-265, 1998, Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco. |
Horvitz, E., et al., “Time-critical action: Representations and application”, In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-97), pp. 250-257, 1997, Providence, RI, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. |
Horvitz, E., et al., “Time-dependent utility and action under uncertainty”, In Proceedings of Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 151-158, 1991, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco. |
Horvitz, Eric et al., “In Pursuit of Effective Handsfree Decision Support: Coupling Bayesian Inference”, Speech Understanding, and User Models, 1995, 8 pages. |
Japanese Final Rejection in Application 2001-514691, mailed Feb. 5, 2010, 8 pgs. |
Japanese Final Rejection in Application 2001-514691, mailed Jun. 11, 2010, 5 pgs. |
Japanese Final Rejection in Application 2001-514693, mailed Oct. 7, 2011, 9 pgs. |
Japanese Final Rejection in Application 2001-514693, mailed Mar. 4, 2011, 11 pgs. |
Japanese Notice of Allowance in Application 2001-514693, mailed Jan. 31, 2012, 6 pgs. |
Japanese Notice of Rejection in Application 2001-514693, mailed Oct. 5, 2010, 9 pgs. |
Japanese Pre-Appeal Examination in Application 2001-514693, mailed Jul. 29, 2011, 2 pgs. |
Japanese Written Appeal in Application 2001-514693, filed Jul. 4, 2011, 6 pgs. |
Joachims, Thorsten, “Text Categorized with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features”, 1998, 7 pages. |
Koleszar, “A Landmark-Based Location Reference Grid for Street Maps”, http://stilnet.dtic.mil/oai/oai? &verb˜getRecord&metadataPrefix˜htrnl&identifieFADA070048, Defense Technical Information Center, Jun. 1, 1979, 1 page. |
Koller, Daphne et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection”, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Machine Learning, 1996, pp. 284-292, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. |
Leiberman, H., “An agent that assist web browsing”, In Proceedings of IJCAI-95, Montreal Canada, 1995, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 6 pages. |
Lewis, David D., “Evaluating and Optimizing Autonomous Text Classification Systems”, International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1995, pp. 246-254. |
Lewis, David D., et al., “Training Algorithms for Linear Text Classifiers”, SIGIR'96, 1996, 9 pages. |
Losee, Jr., Robert M., “Minimizing Information Overload: The Ranking of Electronic Messages”, Journal of Information Science, 1989, pp. 179-189, vol. 15, Issue 3. |
MacSkassy, Sofus A. et al., “EmailValet: Learning Email Preferences for Wireless Platforms”, Jun. 3, 1999, 4 pgs. |
Maes, Pattie, “Social Interface Agents: Acquiring Competence by Learning from Users and other Agents”, AAAI Technical Report Ss-94-03, 1994, pp. 71-78. |
Maes, Pattie, et al., “Learning Interface Agents”, AAAI-93 Proceedings, 1993, pp. 459-465. |
Marx, Matthew et al., “CLUES: Dynamic Personalized Message Filtering”, 1996 ACM, 9 pgs. |
MacSkassy, Sofus A., et al., “EmailValet: Learning User Preferences for Wireless Email, IJCAI-99 Workshops: Learning About Users and Machine Learning for Information Filtering”, pp. 1-6, 1999. |
May et al., “Presence and Quality of Navigational Landmarks: Effect on Driver Performance and Implications for Design”, http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstrearn/2134/2277/1/PUB284.pdf, last accessed Mar. 14, 2007, 40 pages, Loughborough, United Kingdom. |
Mock, Kendrick, “An Experimental Framework for Email Categorization and Management”, Proceedings of The 24th Annual ACM SIGIR Conference, pp. 392-393, 2001. |
PCT International Search Report mailed Sep. 29, 2003, for International Application Serial No. PCT/US00/20685, 7 pgs. |
Platt, J., “Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal optimization”, In Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning. MIT Press, 1999, pp. 41-65, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. |
Platt, John C., “Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines and Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods”, Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, 1999 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 11 pages. |
Provost, Jefferson, “Naive-Bayes vs. Rule-Learning in Classification of Email”, pp. 1-4, University of Texas at Austin, Artificial Intelligence Lab. Technical Report, AI-TR-99-284, 1999. |
Riecken, Doug et al., “Agents That Reduce Work and Information Overload”, p. 31-40; p. 146 (ACM, Communication of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 7, Jul. 1994). |
Rhodes, Bradley J., “Remembrance Agent: A continuously running automated information retrieval system”, The Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi Agent Technology, 1996, pp. 487-495. |
Rhodes, Bradley J., “The Wearable Remembrance Agent: A System for Augmented Memory”, Personal Technologies Journal Special Issue on Wearable Computing, 1997, 12 pages. |
Rhodes, Bradley J., “The Wearable Remembrance Agent: A System for Augmented Theory”, The Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Oct. 1997, pp. 123-128. |
Sahami, M. et al., “A Bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mail”, In Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, AAAI Technical Report WS-98-05, 1998, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, 8 pgs. |
Schilit, Bill et al., “Context-Aware Computing Applications”, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Dec. 1994. pp. 85-90. |
Schilit, Bill et al., “Customizing Mobile Applications”, Proceedings USENIX Symposium on Mobile and Location Independent Computing, Aug. 1993, 9 pages. |
Schilit, Bill et al., “Disseminating Active Map Information to Mobile Hosts”, IEEE Network, 1994, pp. 22-32, vol. 8—No. 5. |
Schilit, Bill et al., “The ParcTab Mobile Computing System”, IEEE WWOS-IV, 1993, 4 pages. |
Schilit, William Noah, “A System Architecture for Context-Aware Mobile Computing”, Columbia University, 1995, 153 pages. |
Segal, Richard, et al., “MailCat: An Intelligent Assistant for Organizing Email”, Autonomous Agents '99, p. 276-282, 1999, 5 pgs. |
Smith, Craig A., “Agent Function for viewpoint-like interfaces”, Xerox disclosure journal, vol. 19, No. 6, Nov. 1, 1994, p. 481. |
Spreitzer, Mike et al., “Architectural Considerations for Scalable, Secure, Mobile Computing with Location Information”, The 14th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Jun. 1994, pp. 29-38. |
Spreitzer, Mike et al., “Providing Location Information in a Ubiquitous Computing Environment”, SIGOPS '93, 1993, pp. 270-283. |
Spreitzer, Mike et al., “Scalable, Secure, Mobile Computing with Location Information”, Communications of the ACM, Jul. 1993, 1 page, vol. 36, No. 7. |
Starner, Thad Eugene, “Wearable Computing and Contextual Awareness”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jun. 1999, 249 pages. |
Stenmark, Dick, “The Duality of Email as Corporate Information Channel”, Internal Communication, 1999, pp. 1-4. |
Theimer, Marvin, et al., “Operating System Issues for PDAs”, in Fourth Workshop on Workstation Operating Systems, 1993, 7 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Amendment and Response filed Jan. 20, 2004, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Amendment and Response filed May 7, 2003, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 10, 2006, 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 19, 2004, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Office Action mailed Dec. 27, 2002, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/364,527, Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2003, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/365,293, Office Action mailed Aug. 23, 2002, 20 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/365,293, Office Action mailed Feb. 5, 2003, 20 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/365,293, Office Action mailed Jun. 26, 2003, 22 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Jan. 24, 2003, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Oct. 13, 2003, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Oct. 19, 2004, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Feb. 12, 2003, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Feb. 23, 2005, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Apr. 21, 2004, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Amendment and Response filed Aug. 15, 2005, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Notice of Allowance mailed Nov. 4, 2005, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed Nov. 21, 2003, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed Dec. 15, 2004, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed May 16, 2003, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed May 18, 2005, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed Jul. 20, 2004, 9 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/464,348, Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2002, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment after Allowance filed Jan. 25, 2012, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment and Response filed Feb. 24, 2010, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment and Response filed Mar. 23, 2011, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment and Response filed Sep. 2, 2009, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment and Response filed Sep. 20, 2010, 11 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Amendment and Response filed Sep. 6, 2011, 15 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Notice of Allowance mailed Oct. 28, 2011, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 28, 2012, 13 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Office Action mailed Oct. 3, 2008, 36 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Office Action mailed Dec. 23, 2010, 28 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Office Action mailed Jun. 18, 2010, 27 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/442,546, Office Action mailed Jun. 3, 2011, 17 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Advisory Action mailed Aug. 20, 2004, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Amendment and Response filed Mar. 25, 2004, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Amendment and Response filed Jul. 26, 2004, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 13, 2004, 7 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2003, 12 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/464,603, Office Action mailed Jun. 14, 2004, 14 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/795,695, Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2007, 27 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/795,695, Office Action mailed Jul. 27, 2006, 28 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/795,695, Office Action mailed Jun. 22, 2007, 20 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/314,528, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 18, 2008, 10 pgs. |
Want, Roy et al., “The Active Badge Location System”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Jan. 1992, pp. 91-102, vol. 10, No. 1. |
Want, Roy, “Active Badges and Personal Interactive Computing Objects”, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 1992, 11 pages, vol. 38, No. 1. |
Weiser, Mark, “Some Computer Science Issues in Ubiquitous Computing”, Communications of the ACM, Jul. 1993, pp. 75-84, vol. 36, No. 7. |
Weiser, Mark, “The Computer for the 21st Century, Scientific American”, Sep. 1991, pp. 94-104, vol. 265, No. 3. |
Tomko, “Case Study-Assessing Spatial Distribution of Web Resources for Navigation Services”, available at http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/tomko/publications/tornko04case.pdf, Jan. 2004, 15 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120150964 A1 | Jun 2012 | US |