IP Library Granted Patent US 10,061,765
Granted Patent B2
US 10,061,765 · App. 14/460,773 · Granted Aug 28, 2018

User interface operation based on similar spelling of tokens in text

Inventors: David Cook (Barrington, IL); Jacek Zwierzchlejski (Naperville, IL); Stacey Kacek (Streamwood, IL); Jason Maeder (New Lenox, IL); Stewart Beck (Bolingbrook, IL)
Assignee: Freedom Solutions Group, LLC
G06F17/2735G06F17/273G06F17/277G06F17/2785G06F17/30675
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 10,061,765
App. No.
14/460,773
Granted
Aug 28, 2018
Kind
B2
Abstract

Operation of a user interface includes performing token based analysis of a baseline text corpus and a targeted text listing. For a selected token in the targeted text listing, a matching baseline token in identified. From a plurality of contexts corresponding to the matching baseline token, context-matched and non-context matched usage data for the matching baseline token is identified and provided to a user interface. Similar processing may be performed on the basis of a related, but matching, baseline token. In another embodiment, instances of similar spelling errors are identified on the basis of a plurality of tokens identified in the targeted text listing.

Claims (56)

1. A method for operating a user interface of a machine comprising at least one processor, the method comprising:

identifying, by the at least one processor, a plurality of tokens in a targeted text listing;

filtering, by the at least one processor, a first token of the plurality of tokens according to a first set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the first set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the first set of exclusion rules, determining, by the at least one processor, whether a second token of the plurality of tokens is similar to the first token based on a predetermined number of different characters between the first token and the second token;

when the first token and the second token are similar, filtering, by the at least one processor, the first token and the second token according to a second set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the second set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the second set of exclusion rules, identifying, by the at least one processor, the first token as an instance of a similar spelling error based on the second token; and

providing, by the at least one processor to the user interface, the similar spelling error instance including the first token and the second token.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

receiving, by the at least one processor via the user interface, user input that resolves the similar spelling error instance.

3. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

identifying, by the at least one processor, a third token of the plurality of tokens that has not been identified as an instance of a similar spelling error and that has not been excluded from being identified as an instance of a typographical error, as an instance of a typographical error based on a dictionary; and

providing, by the at least one processor to the user interface, the typographical error instance including the third token.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein filtering the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules further comprises:

identifying, by the at least one processor, an occurrence of a predefined phrase in the plurality of tokens; and

for each token of the plurality of tokens within the occurrence of the predefined phrase, excluding, by the at least one processor, the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein filtering the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules further comprises:

identifying, by the at least one processor, a number of occurrences of each token of the plurality of tokens within the targeted text listing; and

when the number of occurrences for a token of the plurality of tokens is not less than a threshold, excluding, by the at least one processor, the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

6. An apparatus comprising:

at least one processor;

a storage device operatively connected to the at least one processor and having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

identify a plurality of tokens in a targeted text listing;

filter a first token of the plurality of tokens according to a first set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the first set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the first set of exclusion rules, determine whether a second token of the plurality of tokens is similar to the first token based on a predetermined number of different characters between the first token and the second token;

when the first token and the second token are similar, filter the first token and the second token according to a second set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the second set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the second set of exclusion rules, identify the first token as an instance of a similar spelling error based on the second token; and

provide the similar spelling error instance including the first token and the second token to a user interface.

7. The apparatus of claim 6 , wherein the storage device further comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

receive, via the user interface, user input that resolves the similar spelling error instance.

8. The apparatus of claim 6 , wherein the storage device further comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

identify a third token of the plurality of tokens that has not been identified as an instance of a similar spelling error and that has not been excluded from being identified as an instance of a typographical error, as an instance of a typographical error based on a dictionary; and

provide the typographical error instance including the third token to the user interface.

9. The apparatus of claim 6 , wherein those instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to filter the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules are further operative to:

identify an occurrence of a predefined phrase in the plurality of tokens; and

for each token of the plurality of tokens within the occurrence of the predefined phrase, exclude the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

10. The apparatus of claim 6 , wherein those instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to filter the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules are further operative to:

identify a number of occurrences of each token of the plurality of tokens within the targeted text listing; and

when the number of occurrences for a token of the plurality of tokens is not less than a threshold, exclude the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

11. A non-transitory, machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

identify a plurality of tokens in a targeted text listing;

filter a first token of the plurality of tokens according to a first set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the first set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the first set of exclusion rules, determine whether a second token of the plurality of tokens is similar to the first token based on a predetermined number of different characters between the first token and the second token;

when the first token and the second token are similar, filter the first token and the second token according to a second set of exclusion rules, whereby the first token is excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error if it satisfies any rule of the second set of exclusion rules;

when the first token has not been excluded as an instance of a similar spelling error according to the second set of exclusion rules, identify the first token as an instance of a similar spelling error based on the second token; and

provide the similar spelling error instance including the first token and the second token to a user interface.

12. The machine-readable medium of claim 11 , further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

receive, via the user interface, user input that resolves the similar spelling error instance.

13. The machine-readable medium of claim 11 , further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:

identify a third token of the plurality of tokens that has not been identified as an instance of a similar spelling error and that has not been excluded from being identified as an instance of a typographical error, as an instance of a typographical error based on a dictionary; and

provide the typographical error instance including the third token to the user interface.

14. The machine-readable medium of claim 11 , wherein those instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to filter the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules are further operative to:

identify an occurrence of a predefined phrase in the plurality of tokens; and

for each token of the plurality of tokens within the occurrence of the predefined phrase, exclude the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

15. The machine-readable medium of claim 11 , wherein those instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to filter the first token according to the first set of exclusion rules are further operative to:

identify a number of occurrences of each token of the plurality of tokens within the targeted text listing; and

when the number of occurrences for a token of the plurality of tokens is not less than a threshold, exclude the token from being identified as an instance of a similar spelling error.

Assignments (6)
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT RECORDED AT REEL 039120, FRAME 0168 Recorded Jun 3, 2019
From: PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
To: FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.; MICROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS COMPANY, LLC
Reel/Frame 049354/0402 →
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS RECORDED AT REEL 039389, FRAME 0654 AND REEL 046713, FRAME 0243 Recorded Jun 3, 2019
From: SARATOGA INVESTMENT CORP. SBIC LP
To: FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.; MICROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS COMPANY, LLC
Reel/Frame 049346/0276 →
PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded May 31, 2019
From: LITÉRA CORPORATION; FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.
To: OWL ROCK CAPITAL CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 049337/0220 →
PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Jul 19, 2016
From: FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.; MICROSYSTEMS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC
To: SARATOGA INVESTMENT CORP. SBIC LP, AS AGENT
Reel/Frame 039389/0654 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jul 11, 2016
From: FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.; MICROSYSTEMS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC
To: PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Reel/Frame 039120/0168 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 26, 2014
From: COOK, DAVID; ZWIERZCHLEJSKI, JACEK; KACEK, STACEY; MAEDER, JASON; BECK, STEWART
To: FREEDOM SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC D/B/A MICROSYSTEMS
Reel/Frame 033829/0452 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20160048488A1 · Feb 18, 2016