Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9349095B1/en
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:50:06
Document Index: 323519597

Matched Legal Cases: ['application No. 2', 'application No. 2662410', 'application No. 200780007501', 'application No. 200780007486', 'application No. 07757817', 'application No. 07757821', 'application No. 07757817', 'application No. 4598', 'application No. 4602', 'application No. 2008', 'application No. 200780007486', 'application No. 200780007486', 'application No. 200780007501', 'application No. 200780007486', 'application No. 2008', 'application No. 2008', 'application No. 2009']

US9349095B1 - Creation and utilization of relational tags - Google Patents
Creation and utilization of relational tags Download PDF
US9349095B1
US9349095B1 US13/326,187 US201113326187A US9349095B1 US 9349095 B1 US9349095 B1 US 9349095B1 US 201113326187 A US201113326187 A US 201113326187A US 9349095 B1 US9349095 B1 US 9349095B1
US13/326,187
2011-12-14 Application filed by Amazon Technologies Inc filed Critical Amazon Technologies Inc
2011-12-14 Priority to US13/326,187 priority patent/US9349095B1/en
2016-02-26 Assigned to AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. reassignment AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: FRANK, MARTIN R., GOLDSTEIN, MICHEL L., TSENG, WALTER MANCHING
2016-05-24 Publication of US9349095B1 publication Critical patent/US9349095B1/en
This application is a divisional of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, issued on Jan. 24, 2012, naming the inventors of Walter M. Tseng, Martin R. Frank, and Michel L. Goldstein, entitled “Creation and Utilization of Relational Tags,” which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 8,112,324, issued on Mar. 3, 2006, naming the inventors of Martin R. Frank, Walter M. Tseng, Charles E. Groom, and Fred F. Sadaghiani, entitled “Collaborative Structured Tagging for Item Encyclopedias.” The U.S. Patent Applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
FIG. 7 sets forth one such concept object 702. The concept object 702 can include a concept name field 704, a free text description field 706, and a tagging data structure 708. The optional concept name field 704 contains a unique name of the concept for the purpose of identifying the concept. The optional free text description field 706 allows users to enter a description of the concept, the associated item, or both.
The tagging data structure 708 associates multiple tags including one or more first or category tags 710(1)-710(K) and one or more collections of second or fact tags 712(1)-712(J). The category tags 710(1)-710(K) characterize the items in terms of generic or objective categories. For instance, suppose that the item is an Olympus® brand digital camera sold by the Olympus Corporation. In this example, a category tag might be “digital camera”.
an electronic data store configured to at least store specific computer-executable instructions; and
at least one computing device having a physical processor, the at least one computing device in communication with the electronic data store and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least:
create relational tags, each of the relational tags linking a base product to at least one other product, wherein each relational tag indicates:
the base product,
the at least one other product,
a distinction between the base product and the at least one other product, and
a context comprising:
a description defining an environmental condition in which the base product and the at least one other product operate; and
a qualification defining why the distinction is considered true; and
order the products within a graph based at least in part on the relational tags, to thereby provide an indication of a top-ranked product or bottom-ranked product in the graph.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to at least create category tags, wherein each category tag identifies a category of an associated product.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to at least provide an ordered list of products within a selected category by filtering with respect to a category tag associated with the selected category.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to at least analyze the collective tagging behavior of users and form a confidence level associated with the indication of the top-ranked product or the bottom-ranked product.
under control of at least one computing device having at least one physical processor,
accessing an electronic data store of relational tags that annotate respective products and link a base product to at least one other product, wherein each relational tag indicates:
a defined distinction between the base product and the at least one other product, and
a defined context comprising:
a qualification defining why the defined distinction is considered true; and
performing comparative analysis on the relational tags in the electronic data store to provide an output result.
6. The computerized method of claim 5, wherein at least one relational tag in the electronic data store is based at least in part on a distinction that ranks the base product as being better than or worse than said at least one other product.
7. The computerized method of claim 5, wherein the comparative analysis involves ranking the products to provide an indication of a top-ranked product or bottom-ranked product.
8. The computerized method of claim 5, further comprising annotating the base product with at least one of the relational tags.
9. One or more computer-readable media containing machine-readable instructions for implementing the computerized method of claim 5.
10. One or more computing devices, comprising:
memory to store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the computerized method of claim 5.
11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a module that, when executed by a processor, generates a tagging data structure comprising:
a relational tag that relates a base product with at least one other product, wherein the relational tag indicates:
an identified context comprising:
a qualification defining why the defined distinction is considered true.
12. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the relational tag comprises:
a name tag that identifies a type of distinction expressed by the relational tag; and
a value tag that expresses said at least one other product.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the tagging data structure also stores at least one category tag that identifies a category of the base product.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein: with at least one additional relational tag, the relational tag forms a graph of interconnected products, each relational tag forming the graph relating the base product with at least one other product according to the defined distinction, wherein the defined distinction ranks the base product with respect to the at least one other product within a context identified by at least the graph.
computer-readable media including computer-readable media on which the tagging data structure is embodied as recited in claim 11.
16. A system for processing tags, comprising:
a tag-related electronic data store; and
one or more processors in communication with the tag-related electronic data store and configured to at least:
create a relational tag that relates a base product with at least one other product, wherein the relational tag indicates:
store the relational tag in the tag-related electronic data store, wherein the relational tag provides metadata concerning the base product, and
wherein the tag-related electronic data store provides a graph of interconnected products formed through the repeated application of the creating and the storing.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform comparative analysis on the graph of interconnected products.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the comparative analysis involves analyzing a plurality of relational tags to rank the products in the graph of interconnected products within the identified context.
19. The system of claim 1, wherein each relational tag ranks the base product as being better than or worse than the at least one other product.
US13/326,187 2006-03-03 2011-12-14 Creation and utilization of relational tags Active 2026-06-12 US9349095B1 (en)
US13/326,187 US9349095B1 (en) 2006-03-03 2011-12-14 Creation and utilization of relational tags
US11/537,446 Continuation US8103614B2 (en) 2006-03-03 2006-09-29 Definition and utilization of relational tags
US9349095B1 true US9349095B1 (en) 2016-05-24
US11/276,539 Active 2029-12-02 US8112324B2 (en) 2006-03-03 2006-03-03 Collaborative structured tagging for item encyclopedias
US11/537,446 Active 2028-07-10 US8103614B2 (en) 2006-03-03 2006-09-29 Definition and utilization of relational tags
US13/326,187 Active 2026-06-12 US9349095B1 (en) 2006-03-03 2011-12-14 Creation and utilization of relational tags
JP2002010338A (en) 2000-06-23 2002-01-11 Ntt Docomo Inc Channel assignment method and communication apparatus
US20020076674A1 (en) 2000-09-21 2002-06-20 Kaplan Craig Andrew Method and system for asynchronous online distributed problem solving including problems in education, business, finance, and technology
US20020184108A1 (en) 2001-06-01 2002-12-05 Fujitsu Limited Method and apparatus for providing relative-evaluations of commodities to user by using commodity-comparison map
US20030056222A1 (en) 2001-09-04 2003-03-20 Yoshiaki Iwata Virtual content distribution system
US20030074190A1 (en) 2001-10-12 2003-04-17 Allison David S. Method and apparatus for dynamic configuration of a lexical analysis parser
US20040193506A1 (en) 2003-03-31 2004-09-30 John Zmolek Collaborative product taxonomy instantiation
US20050065856A1 (en) 2003-09-19 2005-03-24 Timothy Roberts Self-service catalog manager for stores implemented on a communications network
US20050251384A1 (en) 2004-05-05 2005-11-10 Microsoft Corporation Word extraction method and system for use in word-breaking
US20050256787A1 (en) 2001-04-11 2005-11-17 I2 Technologies Us, Inc. Intelligent fulfillment agents
US20060190355A1 (en) 1997-10-10 2006-08-24 Microsoft Corporation System and Method for Designing and Operating an Electronic Store
US20070043742A1 (en) 2005-08-16 2007-02-22 Arguello Juan F Systems and methods for building and implementing ontology-based information resources
US20070168179A1 (en) 2006-01-13 2007-07-19 United Technologies Corporation Method, program, and system for optimizing search results using end user keyword claiming
US20070244756A1 (en) 2006-04-03 2007-10-18 Kay Stucki Internet business co-op with rotating banners
US20100153364A1 (en) 2008-12-15 2010-06-17 International Business Machines Corporation Collaborative bookmarking
US20100211463A1 (en) 2000-08-01 2010-08-19 Yahoo! Inc. Targeted e-commerce system
JP2002358327A (en) 2001-06-01 2002-12-13 Fujitsu Ltd Providing method for commodity information, using method therefor, providing apparatus therefor, program and recording medium
"Google Base on Flickr-Photo Sharing!", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at <<http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirson/55908013>>, 5 pgs.
"Google Base on Flickr-Photo Sharing!", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at >, 5 pgs.
"Google Base Was Sort of Live", retrieved on Mar. 1, 2006 at <<http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-10-25-n57.html>>, 2 pgs.
"Google Base Was Sort of Live", retrieved on Mar. 1, 2006 at >, 2 pgs.
"Google Base-Google Search", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at <<http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+Base>>, 2 pgs.
"Google Base-Google Search", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at >, 2 pgs.
Battelle, John "Base.Google.com (Or . . . All Your Base Are Belong to Google)", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at <<http://battellemedia.com/archives/001960.php>>, 8 pgs.
Battelle, John "Base.Google.com (Or . . . All Your Base Are Belong to Google)", retrieved on Nov. 3, 2005 at >, 8 pgs.
Beilenberg et al., "Groups in Social Software: Utilizing Tagging to Integrate Individual Contexts for Social Navigation", Master Thesis submitted Aug. 16, 2005, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany, 120 pages.
Choy, "Web Information Retrieval in Collaborative Tagging Systems", ACM, 2 Pen Plaza, Suite 701, New York, USA, 2006.
Corcho et al ("WebODE: An Integrated Workbench for Ontology Representation, Reasoning, and Exchange" 2002). *
Etsy, "Etsy: Your place to buy and sell all things handmade" retrieved on May 4, 2010 at <<http://www.etsy.com/>> 8 pages.
Etsy, "Etsy: Your place to buy and sell all things handmade" retrieved on May 4, 2010 at > 8 pages.
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,218, mailed on Oct. 20, 2011, Martin R. Frank, "Convergence of Terms Within a Collaborative Tagging Environment", 38 pages.
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/615,851, mailed on Mar. 5, 2015, Paul A. Kotas, "Community-Based Selection of Online Advertisements", 27 pages.
Fung, "Domain Word Translation by Space-Frequency Analysis of Content Length Histograms", IEEE, 1996, pp. 184-pp. 187.
Grudin, "Trends in Collaborative Technologies for Supporting Knowledge Management", IEEE, 2005, pp. 5.
Guan et al., "Intelligent product brokering for e-commerce: an incremental approach to unaccounted attribute detection" Electonic Commerce Research and Applications 3 (2004) pp. 232-pp. 252.
Hof, Robert et al., "Big Waves from 'Google Base'", retrieved on Mar. 1, 2006 at <<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/contect/oct2005/tc20051027-587849>>, 4 pgs.
Hof, Robert et al., "Big Waves from 'Google Base'", retrieved on Mar. 1, 2006 at >, 4 pgs.
Judit Bar-Ilan ("What do we know about links and linking? A framework for studying links in academic environments" 2004). *
Linden, et al., "Amazon.com Recommendations: Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering", Feb. 2003.
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,539, mailed on Jul. 8, 2011, Martin R. Frank, "Collaborative Structured Tagging for Item Encyclopedias ".
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,218, mailed on Apr. 30, 2012, Martin R. Frank et al., "Convergence of Terms Within a Collaborative Tagging Environment", 47 pages.
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,218, mailed on May 11, 2011, Martin R. Frank, "Convergence of Terms Within a Collaborative Tagging Environment".
Office action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,320, mailed on Aug. 7, 2015, Kotas et al., "Tag-Driven Concept-Centric Electronic Marketplace ", 15 pages.
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/615,851, mailed on Dec. 17, 2013, Paul A. Kotas, "Community-Based Selection of Online Advertisements", 17 pages.
Office action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/615,851, mailed on Jul. 24, 2014, Kotas et al., "Community-Based Selection of Online Advertisements", 19 pages.
Qiu et al ("Using Link Types in Web Page Ranking and Filtering" IEEE 2002). *
Roy, et al., "Collaborative Product Conceptualization Tool Using Web Technology", Computers in Industry 41, 2000, pp. 195-209.
Stewart, "The ABC's of Co-Ops", Apr. 2004, 10 pages.
Suzuki, "Follow process of forming original idea and technique into tools! How to you create the site?", Web Designing, vol. 5, No. 10, Mynavi Corporation, Japan, Oct. 1, 2005, pp. 72-73.
The Canadian Office Action mailed Jul. 21, 2015 for Candadian patent application No. 2,662,410, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,022, 4 pages.
The Canadian Office Action mailed Oct. 3, 2014 for Canadian patent application No. 2662410, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,022, 2 pages.
The Chinese Office Action mailed Apr. 1, 2012 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007501.0, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,112,324, 10 pages.
The Chinese Office Action mailed Dec. 18, 2014 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007486.X, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,446, 7 pages.
The European Office Action mailed Feb. 21, 2014 for European patent application No. 07757817.7, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,112,324, 5 pages.
The European Office Action mailed Mar. 27, 2014 for European patent application No. 07757821.9, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, 4 pages.
The Extended European Search Report mailed Mar. 16, 2012 for European patent application No. 07757817.7, 7 pages.
The Indian Office Action mailed Aug. 13, 2015 for Indian patent application No. 4598/CHENP/2008, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, 2 pages.
The Indian Office Action mailed Jun. 15, 2015 for Indian patent application No. 4602/CHENP/208, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,539, 2 pages.
The Japanese Office Action mailed May 2, 2012 for Japanese patent application No. 2008-558480, a counterpart foriegn application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,112,324, 8 pages.
Translated Copy of the Chinese Office Action mailed Dec. 18, 2014 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007486.X, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,446, 7 pages.
Translated copy of the Chinese Office Action mailed Jun. 26, 2012 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007486.X, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, 10 pages.
Translated copy of the Chinese Office Action mailed Oct. 28, 2011 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007501.0, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,539, 9 pages.
Translated copy of the Chinese Office Action mailed Sep. 7, 2011 for Chinese patent application No. 200780007486.X, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,446, 9 pages.
Translated copy of the Japanese Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2012 for Japanese patent application No. 2008-558481, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, 6 pages.
Translated copy of the Japanese Office Action mailed Mar. 1, 2013 for Japanese patent application No. 2008-558481, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,103,614, 6 pages.
Translated copy of the Japanese Office Action mailed Mar. 1, 2013 for Japanese patent application No. 2009-530600, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,022, 8 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/615,851, filed Dec. 22, 2006, Paul A. Kotas and Joseph C. Park, "Community-Based Selection of Online Advertisements".
Smith 2007 Tagging: people-powered metadata for the social web, safari
Biere 2003 Business intelligence for the enterprise
US8019650B2 (en) 2011-09-13 Method and system for producing item comparisons
Zhang et al. 2008 Web mining: a survey of current research, techniques, and software
US20100299360A1 (en) 2010-11-25 Extrapolation of item attributes based on detected associations between the items
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:TSENG, WALTER MANCHING;FRANK, MARTIN R.;GOLDSTEIN, MICHEL L.;REEL/FRAME:037839/0467