1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to electronic communications and relates more particularly to a system and method for a web-based customer service interface.
2. Description of the Background Art
In a typical organization, communications with customers and others may occur via a variety of different channels. In addition to traditional channels such as letters and telephone calls, customers may also communicate with an organization via electronic mail, facsimile, web-based forms, web-based chat, and wireless communication and voice. An organization will most likely incorporate these and any other newly developed communication channels to allow customers to communicate in a way they find most convenient.
Many of the communication channels mentioned above contain information that is unstructured in nature, usually expressed in natural language. Different customers may make identical requests each in a unique way, using different communication channels, different words and expressions, or both. Human agents are usually required to review each natural language communication to evaluate the customer's intent, and to determine what information or action would be responsive to that intent.
Agents typically must look to various sources to gather all of the information required to respond appropriately to a customer communication. The information may be retrieved from a variety of sources, such as legacy systems, databases, back office systems, and front office systems. Each of these sources may store data in a unique structure or format. An agent typically gathers and organizes the required information from one or more of these information sources and uses the information to compose an appropriate content-rich reply that is responsive to the customer's intent.
Utilizing people to respond to customer communications is often inefficient. In addition, an increase in the number of communications received by an organization typically requires an even larger increase in the number of people required to provide an acceptable level of customer service.
Several types of automatic systems exist for responding to customer communications. Rule-based systems, keyword-based systems, and statistical systems typically do not perform with the necessary accuracy to substantially automate business processes, such as responding to customer inquiries, and require a large investment in resources to keep them up-to-date. Many learning systems utilize a training set of data that is a poor representation of the system's world, which reduces the accuracy of the system and makes the process of updating the system very cumbersome.
The present invention provides a system and method for processing a web-based query. In one embodiment of the invention, the System comprises a web server for transmitting a web form having at least one text field box for entering a natural language query to a client, and a language analysis server for analyzing the natural language query and optional meta-data received from the client to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category based on information contained within a knowledge base. The web server is further configured to selectively transmit a resource page to the client, where the resource page includes at least one suggested response and optionally other data corresponding to at least one predefined category. In addition, the web server is further configured to receive a communicative action from the client after the resource page is transmitted, wherein the language analysis server may adapt the knowledge base in accordance with the communicative action.
In one embodiment of the invention, the language analysis server classifies the natural language query into predefined categories based on computed match scores, where each match score corresponds to one of the predefined categories. Furthermore, each match score is representative of a confidence level that the natural language query is relevant to a corresponding predefined category. The language analysis server calculates each match score based upon a comparison of concepts extracted from the natural language query to concepts associated with the predefined categories. Each match score is representative of a statistical likelihood of the natural language query being correctly classified to the corresponding predefined category
In another embodiment of the invention, the language analysis server routes the natural language query to an agent based upon an analysis of the computed match scores according to a predetermined logic (e.g., if none of the computed match scores meet a predetermined threshold level). In yet another embodiment, the language analysis server transmits a solution page to the client based upon an analysis of the computed match scores according to the predetermined logic (e.g., if at least one match score meets a predetermined high-threshold level).
In accordance with the invention, the method comprises transmitting a web page having at least one user-interactable element for entering a natural language query and optional meta-data to a client, receiving the natural language query and the optional meta-data, analyzing the natural language query to classify the natural language query into at least one predefined category using information contained within a knowledge base, and selectively transmitting a resource page to the client. The resource page includes at least one suggested response and optionally other data corresponding to at least one predefined category.
The language analysis server 210 analyzes and classifies the electronic query comprising any combination of natural language text, structured text, and structured data (e.g., meta-data) into predefined categories stored in the knowledge base 215, based upon linguistic modeling rules and concepts associated with the predefined categories. In one embodiment, the language analysis server 210 linguistically analyzes the query based upon content and context of the query, and classifies the query to one or more of the predefined categories stored in the knowledge base 215 based upon a match score derived from a statistical comparison of concepts extracted from the query to concepts associated with the one or more predefined categories. In another embodiment, the language analysis server 210 analyzes the query (i.e., extracts concepts from the query) to match the query to the one or more predefined categories using standard search techniques. The language analysis server 210 is discussed further below in conjunction with
The knowledge base 215 is a branching network of nodes arranged in a vertically structured hierarchy (i.e., tree hierarchy) that represent the various predefined categories. Logically related predefined categories are associated with a branch, which in turn may be associated with a branch of larger scope. Creation of the hierarchies can be either manual (via a configuration tool or an API), automatic by monitoring feedback received via the client 105 or an agent, or a combination, whereby an automatic tool displays suggestions according to performance of the customer service interface 115. A user may then create the hierarchies based upon the suggestions. The knowledge base 215 may also include flat hierarchies as a special case of tree hierarchies. An embodiment of the language analysis server 210 and the knowledge base 215 are discussed in more detail in patent application Ser. No. 10/839,829, entitled, “System and Method for Electronic Communication Management,” herein incorporated by reference, filed on an even date herewith.
The language modeling engine 415 analyzes and classifies natural language text, structured text, and meta-data into predefined categories stored in the knowledge base 215. For example, the language modeling engine 415 analyzes the text and the meta-data by application of linguistic and morphological models to extract concepts. The language modeling engine 415 then computes match scores based upon a comparison of the extracted concepts with rules and concepts associated with the predefined categories stored in the knowledge base 215. The computation of the match scores and further details of the knowledge base 215 are discussed below in conjunction with
The language analysis server 210 linguistically and/or morphologically analyzes the query based upon content and context of the query, and classifies the query to one or more of the predefined categories stored in the knowledge base 215 (
In one embodiment of the invention, the language analysis server 210 computes, for each predefined category, a match score based upon concepts associated with the predefined categories, concepts extracted from the query, and metadata. In an exemplary embodiment of the invention, suppose that the customer service interface 115 services a motorcycle parts and equipment distribution house. Additionally, suppose that the knowledge base 215 has the following three predefined categories: a first predefined category entitled “new parts order,” a second predefined category entitled “complaints,” and a third predefined category entitled “suggestions.” A client correspondent submits to the server 205 a query comprising a natural language text that states, for example, “I am unhappy with the head gasket that you shipped me for my 1955 BMW R50/2. The surface of the replacement gasket is cross-hatched (unlike the original), leading to reduced power and oil leakage. Please either refund my purchase, credit my account or send me the correct gasket.” In response to this query, the language analysis server 210 computes a first, a second, and a third match score in classifying the query to the first, the second, and the third predefined categories, respectively, where the second match score is greater than the first match score, and the first match score is greater than the third match score. For example, the second match score may be 95, the first match score may be 42, and the third match score may be 16.
In one embodiment of the invention, each of the predefined categories has a corresponding resource, or linked suggested response in the knowledge base 215, and the relative values of the computed match scores are indicative of a level of confidence of the corresponding suggested responses to answer the query or of the relevancy of the resource to the query. For example, the second match score of 95 (relative to the first and third match scores of 42 and 16, respectively) indicates that the query is more likely to be resolved by the suggested response associated with the second predefined category than the suggested responses associated with the first or third predefined categories.
Next, the language analysis server 210 sends the suggested responses and corresponding match scores to the server 205 via a communication 518. In one embodiment of the invention, the customer service interface 115 is configured to respond to the communication 518 via either a first set of communications (i.e., communications 520, 522, and 524) or a second set of communications initiated by a communication 526, depending upon the corresponding match scores as described below.
If each of the corresponding match scores is less than a predetermined threshold score (where each predefined category may have a different predetermined threshold score), or based upon an analysis of the match scores according to a predetermined logic, then the customer service interface 115 responds via the first set of communications. The predetermined logic includes any functional analysis of the match scores, exemplary embodiments of which include, but are not limited to, computations of an average match score, a median match score, a match score standard deviation, or other types of statistical and/or numerical functional analyses. In an exemplary embodiment of the first set of communications, the server 205 sends a confirmation page to the client 105 via a communication 520. The confirmation page informs the client 105 that the query will be routed to an agent for further analysis. The communication 520 may comprise additional information such as when the client 105 may expect to receive a reply from the agent, for example. In addition, the language analysis server 210 routes the query to the agent for further analysis via a communication 522. The agent may then reply to the client's query, preferably via an electronic message. However the agent may also respond to the query via alternate communication channels, such as a telephone, a Web-based reply, or other means of electronic communication. Optionally, the language analysis server 210 may analyze the agent's reply, and, based upon the analysis, update the knowledge base 215 via a communication 524.
If, however, at least one of the corresponding match scores received by the server 205 via the communication 518 is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold score (also referred to as a predetermined threshold level), then the customer service interface 115 responds with the communication 526. In one embodiment of the invention, the communication 526 comprises a solution page. The communication 526 comprises a solution page when at least one of the computed match scores has a very high value. Alternatively, the customer service interface 115 may respond with the communication 526 that comprises the solution page based upon an analysis of the match scores according to the predetermined logic as described above. For example, if the customer service interface 115 services a financial institute, a client correspondent may submit a query to the server 205 via the communication 512 that recites, “I want to change my password.” If the customer service interface 115 classifies the query to a “change password” predefined category with a high degree of certainty (e.g., the customer service interface 115 classifies the query to the “change password” predefined category with a match score the meets a predetermined high-threshold score), then the server 205 sends the client 105 a “password changing” web page (i.e., the solution page). In another embodiment, the server 205 re-directs the client 105 to the solution page corresponding to the “password changing” web page. The client 105 may then utilize the solution page to resolve the query.
In another embodiment of the invention, the communication 526 may comprise a resource page. For example, the server 205 sends the resource page to the client 105 comprising the suggested responses having corresponding match scores greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold level via the communication 526. The resource page may also comprise other data (such as links to web resources) having corresponding match scores greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold level. In one embodiment of the invention, the client 105 may utilize one of several communicative actions (i.e., communicative actions 528, 534, or 540) to respond to the resource page.
For example, the client 105 may select a suggested response on the resource page, respond to an embedded form on the resource page, or click on a link to a web resource, via a first communicative action 528. The first communicative action 528 is received and processed by the server 205, and the server 205 then routes the processed first communicative action to the language analysis server 210 for linguistic analysis via a communication 530. The language analysis server 210 may optionally update the knowledge base 215 via a communication 532 based upon the linguistic analysis of the first communicative action 528.
Alternatively, the client 105 may respond to the resource page via a second communicative action 534. The second communicative action 534 comprises a non-response to the resource page. More specifically, the client 105 does not respond to the resource page (i.e., the client is non-responsive). For example, in one embodiment of the invention, if the client 105 does not respond to the resource page within a given time limit, or if the client 105 disconnects from the server 205, for example, the second communicative action 534 comprising a non-response is sent to the server 205. The server 205 then sends a communication 536 to the language analysis server 210 indicating the non-response. The language analysis server 210 may update the knowledge base 215 based upon the non-responsiveness of the client 105 via an optional communication 538.
As an additional alternative, the client 105 may respond to the resource page via a third communicative action 540 comprising a communicative escalation. For example, the client 105 may select (e.g., by mouse-clicking) a “request for help” button embedded in the resource page, or request more information regarding a particular suggested response. The server 205 receives the third communicative action 540 comprising the communicative escalation, and routes the communicative escalation to the language analysis server 210 via a communication 542. The language analysis server 210 then sends the communicative escalation to the agent for further analysis via a communication 544. The language analysis server 210 may optionally update the knowledge base 215 based upon the agent's reply to the communicative escalation via a communication 546.
In step 620, the language analysis server 210 analyzes the query using the language modeling engine 415 (
For example, if each match score associated with each predefined category is less than a corresponding predetermined threshold level, then in step 625, the modeling application 410 routes the query to an agent for further analysis. Preferably, the agent is a human agent. However, in alternate embodiments, the agent may be an automated service, such as an automated phone service or an automated computer system. Next, in step 630, the server 205 sends the client 105 a confirmation page. In one embodiment, the confirmation page comprises a communication confirming that the client's query is being routed to the agent for further analysis. Next, in step 635, the agent replies to the query. In one embodiment of the invention, the agent replies to the client 105 via an electronic mail system. However, the scope of the present invention covers alternate agent-reply methods, such as web-based, telephonic, or facsimile methods.
Next, in optional step 640, the language analysis server 210 processes the agent's reply to the client to generate agent-based feedback. The language analysis server 210 may then update the knowledge base 215 based upon the agent-based feedback. The agent-based feedback may comprise positive or negative feedback. The language analysis server 210 uses the feedback to modify the knowledge base. For example, the language analysis server 210 may modify concepts, add new concepts, eliminate concepts, or modify weights assigned to different concepts associated with concept-oriented nodes. The language analysis server 210 may also modify relationships between nodes, such as structural relationships defined by branching structures, for example. In alternate embodiments, the language analysis server 210 may modify classification rules associated with rule-oriented nodes stored in the knowledge base 215.
Referring back to step 620, if at least one match score associated with at least one predefined category is greater than or equal to a corresponding predetermined threshold level, then in step 645, the server 205 submits a resource page to the client 105. The resource page may comprise a suggested response page, where each suggested response corresponds to a predefined category with an associated match score greater than or equal to the corresponding threshold level. A suggested response may include a message that recites, for example, “no response was found.” Alternatively, if an associated match score is greater than or equal to a corresponding high-threshold level, then the resource page comprises a solution page that provides either a link or a web page to the client 105 that may directly resolve the query. Each predefined category may have different threshold levels and high-threshold levels. Next, in step 650, the client 105 responds to the resource page and the server 205 determines whether the client query is resolved based upon the client response. In one embodiment of the invention, the query is not resolved if the client 105 escalates (e.g., the client 105 responds with a request for help), and the process then continues at step 625.
However, if in step 650 the query is resolved, then in optional step 655, the language analysis server 210 receives client-based feedback (i.e., feedback based upon the client's response). In one embodiment of the invention, the query is considered resolved if the client 105 selects a suggested response, or if the client 105 does not select any response (i.e., the client 105 is non-responsive).
In optional step 655, the language analysis server 210 updates the knowledge base 215 based upon the client-based feedback. For example, a selection of a suggested response corresponding to a high match score generates a positive client-based feedback that may strengthen the concept-oriented nodes of the knowledge base 215 that generated the suggested responses. In one embodiment of the invention, a concept-oriented node may be strengthened by redistributing weights assigned to concepts associated with the node. However, if the client 105 selects a suggested response corresponding to a low match score, then the client 105 generates negative client-based feedback that may modify the concept-oriented nodes and branching structures that generated the selected suggested response.
The present invention has been described above with reference to exemplary embodiments. Other embodiments will be apparent to those skilled in the art in light of this disclosure. The present invention may readily be implemented using configurations other than those described in the exemplary embodiments above. Therefore, these and other variations upon the exemplary embodiments are covered by the present invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/843,972 entitled “WEB-BASED CUSTOMER SERVICE INTERFACE” filed on Aug. 23, 2007, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/839,930 entitled “WEB-BASED CUSTOMER SERVICE INTERFACE” filed on May 5, 2004, which claims the priority and benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/468,576 entitled “Web-Based Customer Service Interface,” filed on May 6, 2003, both of which applications are incorporated herein by reference. This application is related to patent application Ser. No. 10/839,829 entitled “System and Method for Electronic Communication Management,” filed on May 5, 2004, herein incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3648253 | Mullery et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
4110823 | Cronshaw et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4286322 | Hoffman et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
4586160 | Amano et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4642756 | Sherrod | Feb 1987 | A |
4658370 | Erman et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4724523 | Kucera | Feb 1988 | A |
4805107 | Kieckhafer et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4814974 | Narayanan et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4908865 | Doddington et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4918735 | Morito et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4942527 | Schumacher | Jul 1990 | A |
4984178 | Hemphill et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5018215 | Nasr et al. | May 1991 | A |
5023832 | Fulcher et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5040141 | Yazima et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5051924 | Bergeron et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5060155 | Van Zuijlen | Oct 1991 | A |
5067099 | McCown et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5068789 | van Vliembergen | Nov 1991 | A |
5099425 | Kanno et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5101349 | Tokuume et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5111398 | Nunberg et al. | May 1992 | A |
5125024 | Gokcen et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5210872 | Ferguson et al. | May 1993 | A |
5228116 | Harris et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5230054 | Tamura | Jul 1993 | A |
5247677 | Welland et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5251129 | Jacobs | Oct 1993 | A |
5251131 | Masand et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5265033 | Vajk et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5278942 | Bahl et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5287430 | Iwamoto | Feb 1994 | A |
5311583 | Friedes et al. | May 1994 | A |
5321608 | Namba et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5325298 | Gallant | Jun 1994 | A |
5325526 | Cameron et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5345501 | Shelton | Sep 1994 | A |
5349526 | Potts et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5365430 | Jagadish | Nov 1994 | A |
5369570 | Parad | Nov 1994 | A |
5369577 | Kadashevich et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5371807 | Register et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5377354 | Scannell et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5418717 | Su et al. | May 1995 | A |
5418948 | Turtle | May 1995 | A |
5437032 | Wolf et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5444820 | Tzes et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5475588 | Schabes et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5483466 | Kawahara et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5487100 | Kane | Jan 1996 | A |
5493677 | Balogh et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5493692 | Theimer et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5506787 | Muhlfeld et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5526521 | Fitch et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5542088 | Jennings, Jr. et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5555344 | Zunkler | Sep 1996 | A |
5559710 | Shahraray et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5577241 | Spencer | Nov 1996 | A |
5590055 | Chapman et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5594641 | Kaplan et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5596502 | Koski et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5610812 | Scabes et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5615360 | Bezek et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5627914 | Pagallo | May 1997 | A |
5630128 | Farrell et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634053 | Noble et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634121 | Tracz et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636124 | Rischar et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5649215 | Itoh | Jul 1997 | A |
5664061 | Andreshak et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5680628 | Carus | Oct 1997 | A |
5687384 | Nagase | Nov 1997 | A |
5694616 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5701400 | Amado | Dec 1997 | A |
5708829 | Kadashevich | Jan 1998 | A |
5715371 | Ahamed et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721770 | Kohler | Feb 1998 | A |
5721897 | Rubinstein | Feb 1998 | A |
5724481 | Garberg et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737621 | Kaplan et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5737734 | Schultz | Apr 1998 | A |
5745652 | Bigus | Apr 1998 | A |
5745736 | Picart | Apr 1998 | A |
5748973 | Palmer et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754671 | Higgins et al. | May 1998 | A |
5761631 | Nasukawa | Jun 1998 | A |
5765033 | Miloslavsky | Jun 1998 | A |
5768578 | Kirk et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5794194 | Takebayashi et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799268 | Boguraev | Aug 1998 | A |
5806040 | Vensko | Sep 1998 | A |
5809462 | Nussbaum | Sep 1998 | A |
5809464 | Kopp et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5822731 | Schultz | Oct 1998 | A |
5822745 | Hekmatpour | Oct 1998 | A |
5826076 | Bradley et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832220 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835682 | Broomhead et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845246 | Schalk | Dec 1998 | A |
5850219 | Kumomura | Dec 1998 | A |
5860059 | Aust et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864848 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864863 | Burrows | Jan 1999 | A |
5867495 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5878385 | Bralich et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5878386 | Coughlin | Mar 1999 | A |
5884032 | Bateman et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884302 | Ho | Mar 1999 | A |
5890142 | Tanimura et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890147 | Peltonen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5895447 | Ittycheriah et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5899971 | De Vos | May 1999 | A |
5913215 | Rubenstein et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920835 | Huzenlaub et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933822 | Braden-Harder et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940612 | Brady et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940821 | Wical | Aug 1999 | A |
5944778 | Takeuchi et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946388 | Walker et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5948058 | Kudoh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5950184 | Kartutunen | Sep 1999 | A |
5950192 | Moore et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956711 | Sullivan et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960393 | Cohrs et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963447 | Kohn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5963894 | Riachardson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970449 | Alleva et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974385 | Ponting et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974465 | Wong | Oct 1999 | A |
5983216 | Kirach | Nov 1999 | A |
5991713 | Unger et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991751 | Rivette et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991756 | Wu | Nov 1999 | A |
5995513 | Harrand et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999932 | Paul | Dec 1999 | A |
5999990 | Sharrit et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009422 | Ciccarelli | Dec 1999 | A |
6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018735 | Hunter | Jan 2000 | A |
6021403 | Horvitz et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6025843 | Sklar | Feb 2000 | A |
6026388 | Liddy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6032111 | Mohri et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035104 | Zahariev | Mar 2000 | A |
6038535 | Campbell | Mar 2000 | A |
6038560 | Wical | Mar 2000 | A |
6055528 | Evans | Apr 2000 | A |
6051709 | Bronte | May 2000 | A |
6058365 | Nagal et al. | May 2000 | A |
6058389 | Chandra et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064953 | Maxwell, III et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064971 | Hartnett | May 2000 | A |
6064977 | Haverstock et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067565 | Horvitz | May 2000 | A |
6070149 | Tavor et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070158 | Kirsch et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073101 | Maes | Jun 2000 | A |
6076088 | Paik et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081774 | de Hita et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085159 | Ortega et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092042 | Iso | Jul 2000 | A |
6092095 | Maytal | Jul 2000 | A |
6094652 | Falsal | Jul 2000 | A |
6073098 | Buchsbaum et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6098047 | Oku et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6101537 | Edelstein et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112126 | Hales et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115734 | Mansion | Sep 2000 | A |
6138128 | Perkowitz et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138139 | Beck et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6144940 | Nishi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148322 | Sand et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6151538 | Bate et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154720 | Onishi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6161094 | Adcock et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161130 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6163787 | Tang et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167370 | Tsourikov et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6169986 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182029 | Friedman | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182036 | Poppert | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182059 | Angotti et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182063 | Woods | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182065 | Yeomans | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182120 | Beaulieu et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185603 | Henderson et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199103 | Sakaguchi et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6212544 | Borkenhagen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223201 | Reznak | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226630 | Billmers | May 2001 | B1 |
6233575 | Agrawal et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233578 | Machihara et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236987 | Horowitz et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6243735 | Imanishi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249606 | Kiraly et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256773 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6260068 | Hoenninger et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263335 | Paik et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266631 | Malcolm | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269368 | Diamond | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6243679 | Mohri et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6271840 | Finseth et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6275819 | Carter | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278973 | Chung et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282565 | Shaw et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292794 | Cecchini et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292938 | Sarkar et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298324 | Zuberec et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301602 | Ueki | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304864 | Liddy et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304872 | Chao | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308197 | Mason et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311194 | Sheth et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314439 | Bates et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314446 | Stiles | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324534 | Neal et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327581 | Platt | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349295 | Tedesco et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353667 | Foster et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6353827 | Davies et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360243 | Lindsley et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363373 | Steinkraus | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363377 | Kravets et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366910 | Rajaraman et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6370526 | Agrawal et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374221 | Haimi-Cohen | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377945 | Rievik | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377949 | Gilmour | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393415 | Getchius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397209 | Read et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397212 | Biffar | May 2002 | B1 |
6401084 | Ortega et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408277 | Nelken | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411947 | Rice et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411982 | Williams | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6415250 | van den Akkar | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418458 | Maresco | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421066 | Silvan | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421675 | Ryan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424995 | Shuman | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424997 | Buskirk, Jr. et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430615 | Hellerstein et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434435 | Tubel et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434554 | Asami et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434556 | Levin et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438540 | Nasr et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6438575 | Khan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442542 | Ramani et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442589 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446061 | Doerre et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446081 | Preston | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446256 | Hyman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449589 | Moore | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449646 | Sikora et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460074 | Fishkin | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6463533 | Calamera et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466940 | Mills | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477500 | Maes | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6477580 | Bowman-Amuah | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6480843 | Li | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6490572 | Akkiraju et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6493447 | Goss et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6493694 | Xu et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496836 | Ronchi | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496853 | Klein | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505158 | Conkie | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513026 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6535795 | Schroeder et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542889 | Aggarwal et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560330 | Gabriel | May 2003 | B2 |
6560590 | Shwe et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571282 | Bowman-Amuah | May 2003 | B1 |
6584464 | Warthen | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6507872 | Geshwind | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594697 | Praitis et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601026 | Appelt et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6611535 | Ljungqvist | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6611825 | Billheimer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615172 | Bennett et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618727 | Wheeler et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6651220 | Penteroudakis et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654726 | Hanzek | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654815 | Goss et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665662 | Kirkwood et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6704728 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6711561 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714643 | Gargeya et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714905 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6738759 | Wheeler et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6742015 | Bowman-Amuah | May 2004 | B1 |
6744878 | Komissarchik et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6745181 | Chang et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748387 | Garber et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6766320 | Wang et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6785671 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6850513 | Pelissier | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862710 | Marchisio | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6889222 | Zhao | May 2005 | B1 |
7047242 | Ponte | May 2006 | B1 |
20010027463 | Kobayashi | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010042090 | Williams | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047270 | Gusick | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056456 | Cota-Robles | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020032715 | Utsumi | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052907 | Wakai et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059069 | Hsu | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059161 | Li | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065953 | Alford et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073129 | Wang et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078119 | Brenner et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078121 | Ballantyne | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078257 | Nishimura | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083251 | Chauvel et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087618 | Bohm et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020087623 | Eatough | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091746 | Umberger et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099714 | Murray | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103871 | Pustejovsky | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107926 | Lee | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116463 | Hart | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020150966 | Muraca | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020196911 | Gao et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004706 | Yale | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028564 | Sanfilippo | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046297 | Mason | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20040010491 | Riedinger | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040064554 | Kuno | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040167889 | Chang et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040225653 | Nelken et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040254904 | Nelken et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050187913 | Nelken et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2180392 | Feb 2001 | CA |
0 597 630 | May 1994 | EP |
0 304 191 | Feb 1999 | EP |
09106296 | Apr 1997 | JP |
WO 0036487 | Jun 2000 | WO |
01084373 | Aug 2001 | WO |
01084374 | Aug 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Breese et al, “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering,” Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1998. |
Czerwinski et al, “Visualizing Implicit Queries for Information Management and Retrieval,” Proc. of CHI 1999; ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1999. |
Dumais et al., “Inductive Learning Algorithms and Representations for Task Categorization,” Proc. of 7th Intl. Conf. on Information & Knowledge Management, 1998. |
Horvitz, “Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces,” Proc. of CHI 1999; ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1999. |
Horvitz et al., “Display of Information for Time-Critical Decision Making,” Proc. of the 11th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1995. |
Horvitz et al., “The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling . . . ,” Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1998. |
Horvitz et al., “Time-Dependent Utility and Action Under Uncertainty,” Proc. of the 7th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1991. |
Horvitz et al., “Time-Critical Action: Representations and Application,” Proc. of the 13th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1997. |
Koller et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection,” Proc. of 13th Conf. on Machine Learning, 1996. |
Lieberman, “Letizia: An Agent That Assists in Web Browsing,” Proc. of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995. |
Platt, “Fast Training of Support Vector Machines Using Sequential Minimal Optimization, Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning,” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. |
Platt, “Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines & Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods,” Adv. In Large Margin Classifiers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. |
Sahami et al. “A Bayesian Approach to Filtering Junk E-Mail,” Amer. Assoc. for Art. Intell. Technical Report WS-98-05, 1998. |
Cohen, “Learning Rules that Classify E-Mail,” AT&T Laboratories, 1996. |
Lewis, “Evaluating and Optimizing Autonomous Text Classification Systems,” ACM SIGIR, 1995. |
Lewis et al., “Training Algorithms for Linear Text Classifiers,” ACM SIGIR, 1996. |
Apte et al., “Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 12, No. 3, 1994. |
Losee, Jr., “Minimizing Information Overload; The Ranking of Electronic Messages,” Journal of Information Science 15, 1989. |
Joachimes, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features,” Universitat Dortmund, Germany, 1998. |
Morelli et al., “Predicting Technical Communication in Product Development Organizations,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 42, Iss. 3, Aug. 1995. |
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company, 1961, pp. 538, 834, 1460. |
Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 1997, Third Edition, p. 192. |
Parmentier et al., “Logical Structure Recognition of Scientific Bibliographic References,” 4th Int'l Conf. on Document Anlysis & Recognition, vol. 2, Aug. 18-20, 1997. |
Kalogeraki et al., “Using Multiple Feedback Loops for Object Profiling, . . . ” IEEE Int'l Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, May 2-5, 1999. |
Johnson et al., “Adaptive Model-Based Neural Network Control,” IEEE Int'l Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 13-18, 1990. |
McKinnon et al., “Data Communications and Management of a Distributed Network of Automated Data Acquisition and Analysis Systems,” 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symp., Nov. 1997. |
Moore et al., “Web Page Categorization and Feature Selection Using Association Rule and Principal Component Clustering,” Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, Dec. 1997. |
Mase, “Experiments on Automatic Web Page Categorization for IR Systems,” Technical Report, Stanford University, 1998. |
Berners-Lee et al., “The Semantic Web,” Scientific American.com, May 17, 2001. |
Brasethvik et al., “A Conceptual Modeling Approach to Semantic Document Retrieval,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, May 27-31, 2002. |
“Grammar-like Functional Rules for Representing Query Optimization Alternative,” 1998 ACM, pp. 18-27. |
Khan et al., “Personal Adaptive Web Agent: A Tool for Information Filtering,” Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 1, May 25, 1997, pp. 305-308. |
Davies et al., “Knowledge Discovery and Delivery,” British Telecommunications Engineering, London, GB, vol. 17, No. 1, Apr. 1, 1998, pp. 25-35. |
Persin, “Document Filtering for Fast Ranking,” Sigir 94. Dublin, Jul. 3-6, 1994, Proceedings of the Annual International ACM-Sigir Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Berlin, Springer, DE, vol. Conf. 17, Jul. 3, 1994, pp. 339-348. |
Han et al., “WebACE: A Web Agent for Document Categorization and Exploration,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, May 9-13, 1998, Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York, NY, May 9, 1998, pp. 408-415. |
Shimazu et al., “CAPIT: Natural Language Interface Design Tool with Keyword Analyzer and Case-Based Parser,” NEC Research and Development, Nippon Electric Ltd., Tokyo, JP, vol. 33, No. 4, Oct. 1, 1992, pp. 679-688. |
Firepond eService Provider, http://www.firepond.com/products/eserviceperformer. |
Banter White Paper:, “Natural Language Engines or Advanced Customer Interaction,” by Banter Inc. |
Banter Technology RME, “The Foundation for Quality E-Communications,” Technical White Paper. |
Webster's Computer Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, P.E. Margolis, 1999. |
searchCRM.com Definitions (contact center), http://www.searchctm.techtarget.com. |
“Transforming Your Call Center Into a Contact Center: Where Are You? Trends and Recommendations,” An IDC Executive Brief (#33), Jun. 2001. |
Hawkins et al., “The Evolution of the Call Center to the ‘Customer Contact Center’”, ITSC White Paper, Feb. 2001. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160063126 A1 | Mar 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60468576 | May 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11843972 | Aug 2007 | US |
Child | 14935174 | US | |
Parent | 10839930 | May 2004 | US |
Child | 11843972 | US |