IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,217,273
Granted Patent B2
US 12,217,273 · App. 17/968,750 · Granted Feb 4, 2025

Discovering relevant concept and context for content node

Inventors: Behnam Attaran Rezaei (Santa Clara, CA); Riccardo Boscolo (Culver City, CA); Vwani P. Roychowdhury (Los Angeles, CA)
Assignee: Netseer, Inc.
G06Q30/02G06F16/953G06F40/279G06Q10/10G06Q30/0257
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 12,217,273
App. No.
17/968,750
Granted
Feb 4, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Discovering relevant concepts and context for content nodes to determine a user's intent includes identifying one or more concept candidates in a content node based at least in part on one or more statistical measures, and matching concepts in a concept association map against text in the content node. The concept association map represents concepts, concept metadata, and relationships between the concepts. The one or more concept candidates are ranked to create a ranked one or more concept candidates based at least in part on a measure of relevance. The ranked one or more concept candidates is expanded according to one or more cost functions. The expanded set of concepts is stored in association with the content node.

Claims (51)

1. A method comprising:

extracting a set of concepts from a first web page;

expanding the set of extracted concepts by identifying neighbor concepts related to the context of the extracted concepts in at least one web page other than the first web page;

generating a concept map for the first web page comprising the expanded set of extracted concepts as nodes in the concept map and links between the nodes in the concept map indicating relationships among the expanded set of extracted concepts;

receiving a set of ad concepts for an advertisement;

expanding the set of ad concepts by identifying neighbor concepts in at least one web page that are related to the context of the ad concepts;

receiving a request from a web browser of a user device for the first web page;

determining that at least one concept of the set of expanded ad concepts corresponds to at least one concept of the expanded set of extracted concepts of the first web page; and

in response, displaying the advertisement proximate the first webpage.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the identifying the neighbor nodes is based at least in part on one or more statistical measures, wherein the one or more statistical measures comprises one or more of:

an indication of a likelihood that a given n-gram will appear in a document that is part of a corpus;

a frequency of n-grams in the web page;

a similarity of the web page to other web pages for which relevant concept candidates have already been identified; and

a weight of the web page in the concept map.

3. The method of claim 1 , further comprising opening a second web page via the web browser, the second web page comprising a plurality of different predefined content sections, wherein concept candidates to be added to the concept map are identified from the plurality of different predefined content sections.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the concept map is derived from one or more of:

concept relationships found on the World Wide Web;

associations derived from user browsing history;

advertisers bidding campaigns;

taxonomies; and

encyclopedias.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying neighbor nodes further comprises determining concepts that are more likely to be strongly associated with each other based on one or more cost functions and increasing the weight of the link with the selected neighbor nodes.

6. The method of claim 5 , wherein the one or more cost functions comprises selecting neighbor nodes that, based on aggregate user activity history, have a higher likelihood to be associated.

7. The method of claim 5 , wherein the one or more cost functions comprises determining which neighboring concepts in the concept map are tied to a form of monetization that yields a highest conversion rate.

8. An apparatus comprising:

a memory; and

a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:

extract a set of concepts from a first webpage;

expanding the set of extracted concepts by identifying neighbor concepts related to the context of the extracted concepts in at least one web page other than the first web page;

generate a concept map of the first webpage comprising the expanded set of extracted concepts as nodes in the concept map and links between the nodes indicating relationships among the extracted concepts;

receiving a set of ad concepts for an advertisement;

expanding the set of ad concepts by identifying neighbor concepts in at least one web page related to the context of the ad concepts;

a request from a web browser of a user device for the first web page

determining that at least one concept of the set of expanded ad concepts corresponds to at least one concept of the expanded set of extracted concepts of the first web page; and

in response, displaying the advertisement proximate the first webpage on the user device.

9. The apparatus of claim 8 , wherein the processor identifies the neighbor concepts based at least in part on one or more statistical measures, wherein the one or more statistical measures comprises one or more of:

an indication of a likelihood that a given n-gram will appear in a document that is part of a corpus;

a frequency of n-grams in the web page;

a similarity of the web page to other web pages for which relevant concept candidates have already been identified; and

a weight of the web page in the concept map.

10. The apparatus of claim 8 , wherein the processor is further configured to open a second web page via the web browser, the second web page comprising a plurality of different predefined content sections, wherein concept candidates to be added to the concept map are identified from the plurality of different predefined content sections.

11. The apparatus of claim 8 , wherein the concept map is derived from one or more of:

concept relationships found on the World Wide Web;

associations derived from user browsing history;

advertisers bid campaigns;

taxonomies; and

encyclopedias.

12. The apparatus of claim 8 , wherein the processor is further configured to perform one or more of:

select neighbor nodes that are more likely to be strongly associated with each other,

select neighbor nodes that, based on aggregate user activity history, have a higher likelihood to be associated; and

determine which neighbor concepts in the concept map are tied to a form of monetization that yields a highest conversion rate.

Assignments (5)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jun 30, 2026
From: NETSEER, INC.
To: STREETERVILLE CAPITAL, LLC
Reel/Frame 075137/0579 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 13, 2024
From: NETSEER, INC.; VERTRO, INC.; VALIDCLICK INC.
To: SLR DIGITAL FINANCE LLC
Reel/Frame 068261/0709 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 22, 2023
From: REZAEI, BEHNAM ATTARAN; BOSCOLO, RICCARDO; ROYCHOWDHURY, VWANI P.
To: NETSEER, INC.
Reel/Frame 062446/0424 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 22, 2023
From: NETSEER, INC.
To: NETSEER ACQUISITION, INC.
Reel/Frame 062446/0426 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Jan 22, 2023
From: NETSEER ACQUISITION, INC.
To: NETSEER, INC.
Reel/Frame 062458/0937 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 16545689 · Aug 20, 2019
Continuation 12436748 · May 6, 2009
Provisional Application 61050958 · May 6, 2008
Related Publication 20230043911A1 · Feb 9, 2023
References Cited (159)
US 5721910A · Unger et al. · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 6339767B1 · Rivette et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6816884B1 · Summers · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6826553B1 · DaCosta et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7092953B1 · Haynes · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7181438B1 · Szabo · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 7574659B2 · Szabo · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 7660855B2 · Arning et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7680796B2 · Yeh et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7716060B2 · Germeraad et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7725467B2 · Yamamoto et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7725475B1 · Alspector et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7725525B2 · Work · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7730063B2 · Eder · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7818191B2 · Lutnick et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7822745B2 · Fayyad et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7885987B1 · Lee · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7958120B2 · Muntz et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7984029B2 · Alspector et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7996753B1 · Chan et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8010527B2 · Denoue · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 8024372B2 · Harik et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8050965B2 · Hellevik et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8103659B1 · Spiegel · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 8301617B2 · Muntz et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8370362B2 · Szabo · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8380721B2 · Attaran Rezaei · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 8412575B2 · Labio et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8417695B2 · Zhong et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8468118B2 · Kim et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8799302B2 · Singerman · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8825654B2 · Muntz et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8825657B2 · Rezaei et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8838605B2 · Muntz et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8843434B2 · Rezaei et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9378281B2 · Melton · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 10423668B2 · Leban · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20010037324A1 · Agrawal et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 20020080180A1 · Mander et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020091846A1 · Garcia-Luna-Aceves et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20020143742A1 · Nonomura et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20030046307A1 · Rivette et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20030115191A1 · Copperman · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 20030187881A1 · Murata et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20030227479A1 · Mizrahi et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040059736A1 · Willse · 2004 [cited by examiner]
US 20040080524A1 · Yeh et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040122803A1 · Dom et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040133555A1 · Toong et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040170328A1 · Ladwig et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040267638A1 · Giunta · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050010556A1 · Phelan · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050033742A1 · Kamvar et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050065980A1 · Hyatt et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050114198A1 · Koningstein et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050114763A1 · Nonomura et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050138070A1 · Huberman et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050182755A1 · Tran · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050210008A1 · Tran et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050256905A1 · Gruhl et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050256949A1 · Gruhl et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050283461A1 · Sell et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060004703A1 · Spivack et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060036619A1 · Fuerst · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20060041548A1 · Parsons et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060080422A1 · Huberman et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060106793A1 · Liang · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060106847A1 · Eckardt et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060112105A1 · Adamic et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060112111A1 · Tseng et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060171331A1 · Previdi et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060184464A1 · Tseng et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060209727A1 · Jennings et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060212350A1 · Ellis et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060218035A1 · Park et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060235841A1 · Betz et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060271564A1 · Meng Muntz · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20070038614A1 · Guha · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070112597A1 · Heckerman et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070136457A1 · Dai · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20070143329A1 · Vigen · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070239534A1 · Liu et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080052152A1 · Yufik · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20080086592A1 · Stephani · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080140491A1 · Jain et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080140591A1 · Agarwal · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20100070448A1 · Omoigui · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 20110276563A1 · Sandoval et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20130046797A1 · Muntz et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130046842A1 · Muntz et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130073546A1 · Yan et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130198191A1 · Hernández et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140040184A1 · Benissan · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140067535A1 · Rezaei et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140351237A1 · Rezaei et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150262255A1 · Khajehnouri et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20230043911A1 · Rezaei · 2023 [cited by examiner]
CN 101278257A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
EP 1891509A2 · 2008 [cited by applicant]
WO 2007084616A2 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2007084778A2 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2006121575B1 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2007100923A3 · 2008 [cited by applicant]
University of Chicago, “Behavior of the Museum Visitor”, Edward Stevens Robinson (Year: 1928). [cited by examiner]
Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering (Year: 2009). [cited by examiner]
Jeffrey Heer's Prefuse: A toolkit for Interactive Information Visualization (2005) ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 421-430 (Year: 2005). [cited by examiner]
Weikum et al., “Towards Self-Organizing Query Routing and Processing for Peer-to-Peer Web Search”, DELIS-TR-0287, 2005, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zou et al., “Email Virus Propagation Modeling and Analysis”, Univ. of Mass., Dept. of Electrical and computer Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science, 2004, TR-CSE-03-04, pp. 1-17. [cited by applicant]
Underhill, Why We Buys, 1999. [cited by applicant]
Wang, G., “Web Search with Personalization and Knowledge”, 2002 Proceedings of the IEEE Fourth International Symposium on Multimedia Software Engineering, 2002. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/130,171, filed Aug. 1, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,674, mailed Oct. 21, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, filed Aug. 12, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, filed Jan. 3, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, filed Mar. 16, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, filed Oct. 17, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, filed Aug. 23, 2010. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, filed Aug. 3, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, filed Feb. 29, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, filed Oct. 29, 2009. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, filed Oct. 30, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, filed Nov. 6, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/130,171, filed Apr. 19, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,940, filed Apr. 7, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Amendment and Response to Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,955, filed Apr. 7, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Calado, P., et al., “Combining Link-Based and Content-Based Methods for Web Document Classifications,” CIKM'03, pp. 394-401, ACM, 2003. [cited by applicant]
Chao, I. et al., “Tag Mechanisms Evaluated for Coordination in Open Multi-Agent Systems,” ESAW 2007, LNAI 4995, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 254-269. [cited by applicant]
Franceschetti et. al., “Closing the Gap in the Capacity of Wireless Networks Via Percolation Theory,” IEEE Trans. On Information Theory, vol. 53, No. 3, Mar. 2007, pp. 1009-1018. [cited by applicant]
Jiang, et al., “Monotone Percolation and the Topology Control of Wireless Networks”, California Institute of Technology, Electrical Engineering Dept, 0-7803-8968-9/05, 2005, pp. 327-338. [cited by applicant]
Kini et. al., “Fast and efficient randomized flooding on lattice sensor networks”, Nov. 19, 2004, Drexel University, pp. 1-33. [cited by applicant]
Kong et al., “Collaborative Spam Filtering Using E-Mail Networks”, Aug. 2006, IEEE, pp. 67-73. [cited by applicant]
Newman, M.E.J. et al., “Scaling and percolation in the small-world network model”, Sante Fe Institute, May 6, 1999, pp. 1-12. [cited by applicant]
Newman, M.E.J., “Random Graphs as Models of Networks”, SFI Working Paper: 2002-02-005, 2002, pp. 1-36. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,674, mailed Oct. 12, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, mailed Apr. 16, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, mailed Apr. 30, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/098,870, mailed Jun. 28, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,940, mailed Jun. 13, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/457,693, mailed May 12, 2016. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,955, mailed Jun. 16, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,674, mailed Dec. 20, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, mailed Apr. 17, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, mailed Feb. 12, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, mailed Oct. 3, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,279, mailed Sep. 16, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, mailed Apr. 30, 2012. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, mailed Aug. 29, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/680,599, mailed Jul. 3, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, mailed Aug. 14, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, mailed Jan. 25, 2016. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, mailed Jun. 6, 2013. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, mailed Jun. 9, 2015. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/130,171, mailed Oct. 19, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,940, mailed Jan. 6, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/457,693, mailed Jan. 21, 2016. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/660,955, mailed Jan. 8, 2014. [cited by applicant]
Page, L. et al., “The Page Rank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web,” Technical Report, Stanford InfoLab, 1998, pp. 1-17. [cited by applicant]
Silverberg et al., “A Percolation Model of Innovation in Comples Technology Spaces”, Sep. 2002, MERIT—Infornomics Research Memorandum Series, pp. 1-24, Sep. 2002. [cited by applicant]
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/923,546, mailed Aug. 27, 2012. [cited by applicant]