IP Library Granted Patent US 12,524,455
Granted Patent B2
US 12,524,455 · App. 18/773,407 · Granted Jan 13, 2026

Reconfigurable model for auto-classification system and method

Inventors: Stephen Ludlow (Montreal, CA); Steve Pettigrew (Montreal, CA); Alex Dowgailenko (Montreal, CA); Agostino Deligia (Montreal, CA); Isabelle Giguere (Montreal, CA)
Assignee: CrowdStrike, Inc.
G06F16/35G06F3/0482G06F3/04842G06F16/258G06F16/285G06F16/93G06N20/00G06N99/00
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 12,524,455
App. No.
18/773,407
Granted
Jan 13, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

A reconfigurable automatic document-classification system and method provides classification metrics to a user and enables the user to reconfigure the classification model. The user can refine the classification model by adding or removing exemplars, creating, editing or deleting rules, or performing other such adjustments to the classification model. This technology enhances the overall transparency and defensibility of the auto-classification process.

Claims (47)

1 . A method, comprising:

displaying, by a computer, a model reconfiguration screen that includes a metrics display pane and user interface elements, wherein the metrics display pane displays metrics for a content classification model, the metrics representing a level of accuracy of the content classification model, wherein the user interface elements are configured for making a change to example documents in the content classification model, making a change to rules for assigning classifications to documents, or a combination thereof, and wherein the computer is operable to compare the documents that are to be automatically classified with the example documents in the content classification model and automatically assigns a classification based on the rules;

receiving, by the computer through one of the user interface elements, an instruction to remove an example document from, the content classification model; and

responsive to the instruction, removing, by the computer, the example document from the content classification model, wherein the removing results in the content classification model being reconfigured so as to improve the level of accuracy.

2 . The method according to claim 1 , wherein the displaying is performed in response to the level of accuracy falling below a predetermined threshold.

3 . The method according to claim 1 , wherein the model reconfiguration screen further comprises recommended actions for optimizing the accuracy of the content classification model.

4 . The method according to claim 3 , wherein the recommended actions are updated each time the content classification model is run.

5 . The method according to claim 1 , further comprising:

running a classification test on non-classified documents from a content server;

displaying results from the classification test, the results including classifications assigned by the content classification model;

receiving, through one of the user interface elements, a rejection of one of the classifications assigned by the content classification model for a misclassified document;

receiving an expected classification for the misclassified document; and

correcting the misclassified document using the expected classification.

6 . The method according to claim 1 , wherein each of the rules specifies a rule name and a rule priority.

7 . The method according to claim 6 , wherein each of the rules further specifies a confidence level representing a level of certainty that a document matching the classification is found.

8 . A system, comprising:

a processor;

a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and

instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium and translatable by the processor for:

displaying a model reconfiguration screen that includes a metrics display pane and user interface elements, wherein the metrics display pane displays metrics for a content classification model, the metrics representing a level of accuracy of the content classification model, wherein the user interface elements are configured for making a change to example documents in the content classification model, making a change to rules for assigning classifications to documents, or a combination thereof, and wherein the computer is operable to compare the documents that are to be automatically classified with the example documents in the content classification model and automatically assigns a classification based on the rules;

receiving, through one of the user interface elements, an instruction to remove an example document from, the content classification model; and

responsive to the instruction, removing the example document from the content classification model, wherein the removing results in the content classification model being reconfigured so as to improve the level of accuracy.

9 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the displaying is performed in response to the level of accuracy falling below a predetermined threshold.

10 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the model reconfiguration screen further comprises recommended actions for optimizing the accuracy of the content classification model.

11 . The system of claim 10 , wherein the recommended actions are updated each time the content classification model is run.

12 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the instructions are further translatable by the processor for:

running a classification test on non-classified documents from a content server;

displaying results from the classification test, the results including classifications assigned by the content classification model;

receiving, through one of the user interface elements, a rejection of one of the classifications assigned by the content classification model for a misclassified document;

receiving an expected classification for the misclassified document; and

correcting the misclassified document using the expected classification.

13 . The system of claim 8 , wherein each of the rules specifies a rule name and a rule priority.

14 . The system of claim 8 , wherein each of the rules further specifies a confidence level representing a level of certainty that a document matching the classification is found.

15 . A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor for:

displaying a model reconfiguration screen that includes a metrics display pane and user interface elements, wherein the metrics display pane displays metrics for a content classification model, the metrics representing a level of accuracy of the content classification model, wherein the user interface elements are configured for making a change to example documents in the content classification model, making a change to rules for assigning classifications to documents, or a combination thereof, and wherein the computer is operable to compare the documents that are to be automatically classified with the example documents in the content classification model and automatically assigns a classification based on the rules;

receiving, through one of the user interface elements, an instruction to remove an example document from, the content classification model; and

responsive to the instruction, removing the example document from the content classification model, wherein the removing results in the content classification model being reconfigured so as to improve the level of accuracy.

16 . The computer program product of claim 15 , wherein the displaying is performed in response to the level of accuracy falling below a predetermined threshold.

17 . The computer program product of claim 15 , wherein the model reconfiguration screen further comprises recommended actions for optimizing the accuracy of the content classification model.

18 . The computer program product of claim 17 , wherein the recommended actions are updated each time the content classification model is run.

19 . The computer program product of claim 15 , wherein the instructions are further translatable by the processor for:

running a classification test on non-classified documents from a content server;

displaying results from the classification test, the results including classifications assigned by the content classification model;

receiving, through one of the user interface elements, a rejection of one of the classifications assigned by the content classification model for a misclassified document;

receiving an expected classification for the misclassified document; and

correcting the misclassified document using the expected classification.

20 . The computer program product of claim 15 , wherein each of the rules specifies a rule name and a rule priority.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 20, 2024
From: OPEN TEXT CORP.
To: CROWDSTRIKE, INC.
Reel/Frame 068650/0965 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 16865089 · May 1, 2020
Continuation 14987234 · Jan 4, 2016
Continuation 13665622 · Oct 31, 2012
Related Publication 20240370481A1 · Nov 7, 2024
References Cited (104)
US 6137911A · Zhilyaev · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 6212532B1 · Johnson et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6243723B1 · Ikeda et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6397205B1 · Juola · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6519580B1 · Johnson et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6553365B1 · Summerlin et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6592627B1 · Agrawal et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6668256B1 · Lynch · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6718333B1 · Matsuda · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6789069B1 · Barnhill et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6792415B2 · Shih et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6868411B2 · Shanahan · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 7000178B2 · Unchida et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7028250B2 · Ukrainczyk et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7039856B2 · Peairs et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7065514B2 · Yang-Stephens et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7139695B2 · Castellanos · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7185008B2 · Kawatani · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7194471B1 · Nagatsuka et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7275052B2 · Peh · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7283998B2 · Moon et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7376635B1 · Porcari et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 7496567B1 · Steichen · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7499591B2 · Simske et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7574409B2 · Patinkin · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7711747B2 · Renders et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7734554B2 · Simske et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7899816B2 · Kolo et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7899871B1 · Kumar et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7933859B1 · Puzicha et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8311960B1 · Ginzburg et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8489689B1 · Sharma et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8787681B1 · Rubio · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9256836B2 · Ludlow et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9348899B2 · Simard et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9495652B1 · Cook · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 9760634B1 · Joshi et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10235453B2 · Simard et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10685051B2 · Ludlow et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 11238079B2 · Simard et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11720618B2 · Simard et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20040083224A1 · Yoshida · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050021357A1 · Schuetze et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060047617A1 · Bacioiu · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20060248054A1 · Kirshenbaum et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060287993A1 · Yao et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070067258A1 · Theilmann · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070122347A1 · Statnikov et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080075352A1 · Shibuya et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080154807A1 · Chow et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090089305A1 · Summerlin et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090116736A1 · Neogi et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090181776A1 · Deng · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100257127A1 · Owens · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100262571A1 · Schmidtler et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110040837A1 · Eden et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120054658A1 · Chuat et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120150773A1 · Dicorpo et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120158620A1 · Paquet et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120303558A1 · Jaiswal · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130212109A1 · Evancich · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140122410A1 · Ludlow et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140122486A1 · Simard et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20160117608A1 · Ludlow et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20190179843A1 · Simard et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200285737A1 · Kraus · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20220067545A1 · Calinescu · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220147544A1 · Simard et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230315773A1 · Simard et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
CA 2794103A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/987,234, dated Jul. 30, 2019, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance issued for U.S. Appl. No. 14/987,234, dated Apr. 21, 2020, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance issued for U.S. Appl. No. 14/987,234, dated Jan. 7, 2020, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for Canadian Patent Application No. 2794103, dated Oct. 26, 2017, 6 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for Canadian Patent Application No. 2794101, dated Feb. 19, 2018, 5 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for Canadian Patent Application No. 2794103, dated Sep. 4, 2018, 6 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Jan. 27, 2014, 42 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Chu et al. “Foundations and Advances in Data Mining, Section Web Page Classification,” Springer Mar. 2005, ISBN-3-540-25057-3, 64 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Apr. 29, 2014, 49 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,622, dated Jul. 23, 2014, 13 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Cetintemel et al. “Self-Adaptive User Profiles for Large-Scale Data Delivery,” 2000, 12 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Chen et al. “An Information Retrieval System Based on a User Profile,” The Journal of Systems and Software 54, 2000, pp. 3-8. [cited by applicant]
Siersdorfer et al. “Automated Retraining Methods for Document Classification and their Parameter Tuning,” 2005, pp. 478-486. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al. “Exploration and Exploitation in Adaptive Filtering Based on Baesian Active Learning,” Proceedings of the Twentieth International on Machine Learning (ICML-2003), 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Chen et al. “PVA: A Self-Adaptive Personal View Agent,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, (2002) pp. 173-194. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Aug. 6, 2014, 46 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,622, dated Nov. 3, 2014, 17 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Nov. 26, 2014, 59 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Aug. 19, 2015, 61 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/148,717, dated May 14, 2018, 24 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued for Canadian Application No. 2,794,101, dated Feb. 13, 2019, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 14/987,234, dated Oct. 22, 2018, 10 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Examination Report issued for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,794,103, dated Feb. 16, 2021, 4 pages. [cited by applicant]
Examination Report issued for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,794,101, dated Feb. 17, 2021, 4 pages. [cited by applicant]
Examination Report issued for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,794,101, dated Nov. 29, 2021, 4 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance issued for U.S. Appl. No. 16/272,278, mailed Sep. 27, 2021, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, dated Mar. 19, 2015, 53 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Examination Report issued for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,794,103, dated Dec. 14, 2021, 5 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 16/272,278, mailed Jan. 19, 2021, 32 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance issued for U.S. Appl. No. 17/584,179, mailed Mar. 8, 2023, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 14/987,234, dated Feb. 13, 2019, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,622, mailed Mar. 16, 2025, 2 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,607, mailed Jan. 22, 2016, 14 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 15/148,717, mailed Oct. 30, 2018, 16 pgs. [cited by applicant]