IP Library Granted Patent US 12,236,497
Granted Patent B2
US 12,236,497 · App. 15/494,377 · Granted Feb 25, 2025

Systems and methods for predicting policy adoption

Inventors: Brian Grom (Lake Worth, FL); Vladimir Eidelman (Chevy Chase, MD); Daniel Argyle (Alexandria, VA); Jervis Pinto (Md, IN)
Assignee: FiscalNote, Inc.
G06Q50/26G06F3/0482G06F3/04847G06F16/288G06F16/3331G06F40/205G06F40/263G06F40/30G06N5/022G06N5/04G06Q10/06375G06Q50/18G06F16/95G06N20/00G06Q2230/00G06T11/206G06T2200/24
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 12,236,497
App. No.
15/494,377
Granted
Feb 25, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A text analytics system may predict whether a policy will be adopted. The system may include at least one processor configured to access information scraped from the Internet to identify text data associated with comments expressed by a plurality of individuals about a proposed policy. The at least one processor may be further configured to analyze the text data in order to determine a sentiment of each comment; apply an influence filter to each comment to determine an influence metric associated with each comment; weight each comment using the influence metric; determine based on an aggregate of the weighted comments, an indicator associated with adoption of the policy; and transmit the indicator to a system user.

Claims (54)

1. A text analytics system for predicting whether a policy will be adopted, the system comprising:

at least one processor configured to:

scrape information from a plurality of sources on the Internet by a web crawler and an extraction bot, wherein the web crawler is configured to perform functions of finding, indexing, and fetching information from the plurality of sources on the Internet, and wherein the extraction bot is configured to perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources to generate text data, the text data being associated with comments authored by a plurality of individuals about a proposed policy;

generate a policy feature vector based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the proposed policy;

generate a plurality of comment feature vectors based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the text data, wherein each of the comment feature vectors is associated with at least one of the comments;

train, using a training set of the text data and an association between each comment feature vector and an output sentiment, a sentiment model for determining comment sentiments, wherein the sentiment model comprises weights computed for one or more input features of the plurality of comment feature vectors using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the-one or more input features;

determine, based on application of the sentiment model to the text data, a sentiment of each comment;

train, using a training set of at least one of the plurality of comment feature vectors, the policy feature vector, and a policy outcome, a policy adoption model to determine the likelihood of adoption of the policy, wherein the policy adoption model comprises weights computed for the one or more input features using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the one or more input features;

determine, based on application of an influence filter to the text data, an influence metric associated with each comment, the influence metric comprising a value indicating a level of influence the author of each comment has on whether the policy is adopted, wherein applying the influence filter includes accessing a database of individual terms associated with a heightened degree of influence, wherein inclusion of one or more of the individual terms in a comment indicates the comment has a higher impact on whether the policy is adopted than if the one or more individual terms were not included;

weigh each comment based on the level of influence using the influence metric;

apply the policy adoption model to the plurality of comment feature vectors to determine a likelihood of adoption of the policy;

determine based on an aggregate of the weighted comments, a first indicator associated with the likelihood of adoption of the policy and a second indicator associated with the weighted comments; and

transmit the indicators to a system user; and

generate a graphical user interface associated with the policy, wherein the graphical user interface includes a comment summary region including representations of each of the comments authored by the plurality of individuals about the policy, wherein each of the representations include a name of an individual author of the comment and an indicator of the sentiment of the comment.

2. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the individual terms include the author and author related characteristics of the comment.

3. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply an association analysis filter to the text data in order to correlate at least a portion of each comment with a particular section of the proposed policy.

4. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein applying a text analytics filter to the text data in order to determine a sentiment includes matching at least one piece of text data from the comment to at least one other piece of text data stored in a database.

5. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the policy includes at least one regulation.

6. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the policy includes at least one legislative bill.

7. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the second indicator includes arguments associated with the weighted comments.

8. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein the second indicator includes stances taken within the weighted comments.

9. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein at least one individual term of the individual terms is included in the database based on a user input.

10. The text analytics system of claim 1 , wherein at least one individual term of the individual terms is included in the database independent of input from a user.

11. A method for predicting whether a policy will be adopted, the method comprising:

scraping information from a plurality of sources on the Internet by a web crawler and an extraction bot, wherein the web crawler is configured to perform functions of finding, indexing, and fetching information from the plurality of sources on the Internet, and wherein the extraction bot is configured to perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources to generate text data, the text data being associated with comments authored by a plurality of individuals about a proposed policy;

generating policy feature vector based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the proposed policy;

generating a plurality of comment feature vectors based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the text data, wherein each of the comment feature vectors is associated with at least one of the comments;

training, using a training set of the text data and an association between each comment feature vector and an output sentiment, a sentiment model for determining comment sentiments, classifier in order to determine a sentiment of each comment wherein the sentiment model classifier comprises weights computed for one or more input features of the plurality of comment feature vectors using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the one or more input features;

determining, based on application of the sentiment model to the text data, a sentiment of each comment;

training, using a training set of at least one of the plurality of comment feature vectors, the policy feature vector, and a policy outcome, a policy adoption model to determine the likelihood of adoption of the policy, wherein the policy adoption model comprises weights computed for the one or more input features using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the one or more input features;

determining, based on application of an influence filter to the text data, an influence metric associated with each comment, the influence metric comprising a value indicating a level of influence the author of each comment has on whether the policy is adopted, wherein applying the influence filter includes accessing a database of individual terms associated with a heightened degree of influence, wherein inclusion of one or more of the individual terms in a comment indicates the comment has a higher impact on whether the policy is adopted than if the one or more individual terms were not included;

weighing each comment based on the level of influence using the influence metric;

applying the policy adoption model to the plurality of comment feature vectors to determine a likelihood of adoption of the policy;

determining based on an aggregate of the weighted comments, a first indicator associated with the likelihood of adoption of the policy and a second indicator associated with the weighted comments; and

transmitting the indicators to a system user; and

generating a graphical user interface associated with the policy, wherein the graphical user interface includes a comment summary region including representations of each of the comments authored by the plurality of individuals about the policy, wherein each of the representations include a name of an individual author of the comment and an indicator of the sentiment of the comment.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein the individual terms include the author and author related characteristics of the comment.

13. The method of claim 11 , wherein the method further comprises: applying an association analysis filter to the text data; and correlating at least a portion of each comment with a particular section of the proposed policy.

14. The method of claim 11 , wherein applying a text analytics filter to the text data in order to determine a sentiment further comprises: matching at least one piece of text data from the comment to at least one other piece of text data stored in a database.

15. The method of claim 11 , wherein the policy includes at least one regulation.

16. The method of claim 11 , wherein the policy includes at least one legislative bill.

17. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising:

scraping information from a plurality of sources on the Internet by a web crawler and an extraction bot, wherein the web crawler is configured to perform functions of finding, indexing, and fetching information from the plurality of sources on the Internet, and wherein the extraction bot is configured to perform processing on the information from the plurality of sources to generate text data, the text data being associated with comments authored by a plurality of individuals about a proposed policy;

generating policy feature vector based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the proposed policy;

generating a plurality of comment feature vectors based on at least one of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, metadata, linguistic patterns, syntactic parsing, or tone associated with the text data, wherein each of the comment feature vectors is associated with at least one of the comments;

training, using a training set of the text data and an association between each comment feature vector and an output sentiment, a sentiment model for determining comment sentiments, wherein the sentiment model comprises weights computed for one or more input features of the plurality of comment feature vectors using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the one or more input features;

determining, based on application of the sentiment model to the text data, a sentiment of each comment;

training, using a training set of at least one of the plurality of comment feature vectors, the policy feature vector, and a policy outcome, a policy adoption model to determine the likelihood of adoption of the policy, wherein the policy adoption model comprises weights computed for the one or more input features using machine learning, each weight reflecting an importance of the one or more input features;

determining, based on application of an influence filter to the text data, an influence metric associated with each comment, the influence metric comprising a value indicating a level of influence the author of each comment has on whether the policy is adopted, wherein applying the influence filter includes accessing a database of individual terms associated with a heightened degree of influence, wherein inclusion of one or more of the individual terms in a comment indicates the comment has a higher impact on whether the policy is adopted than if the one or more individual terms were not included;

weighing each comment based on the level of influence using the influence metric;

applying the policy adoption model to the plurality of comment feature vectors to determine a likelihood of adoption of the policy;

determining based on an aggregate of the weighted comments, a first indicator associated with the likelihood of adoption of the policy and a second indicator associated with the weighted comments; and

transmitting the indicators to a system user; and

generating a graphical user interface associated with the policy, wherein the graphical user interface includes a comment summary region including representations of each of the comments authored by the plurality of individuals about the policy, wherein each of the representations include a name of an individual author of the comment and an indicator of the sentiment of the comment.

Assignments (6)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 12, 2025
From: FISCALNOTE, INC.; PREDATA, INC.
To: MGG INVESTMENT GROUP LP
Reel/Frame 071991/0938 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 12, 2025
From: RUNWAY GROWTH FINANCE CORP., AS AGENT
To: FISCALNOTE, INC.
Reel/Frame 072001/0012 →
PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Oct 21, 2020
From: FISCALNOTE, INC.; CQ-ROLL CALL, INC.; CAPITOL ADVANTAGE LLC; VOTERVOICE, L.L.C.; SANDHILL STRATEGY LLC; FISCALNOTE HOLDINGS, INC.; FISCALNOTE HOLDINGS II, INC.
To: RUNWAY GROWTH CREDIT FUND INC., AS AGENT
Reel/Frame 054157/0123 →
ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Oct 21, 2020
From: MIDCAP FINANCIAL TRUST, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
To: RUNWAY GROWTH CREDIT FUND INC.
Reel/Frame 054157/0173 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 23, 2018
From: FISCALNOTE, INC.
To: MIDCAP FINANCIAL TRUST, AS AGENT
Reel/Frame 046674/0345 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 5, 2017
From: GROM, BRIAN; EIDELMAN, VLADIMIR; ARGYLE, DANIEL; PINTO, JERVIS
To: FISCALNOTE, INC.
Reel/Frame 042256/0659 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62326618 · Apr 22, 2016
Related Publication 20170308798A1 · Oct 26, 2017
References Cited (77)
US 5371673A · Fan · 1994 [cited by examiner]
US 7260773B2 · Zernik · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7657493B2 · Meijer et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7685091B2 · Boone · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 8117209B1 · Dean et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8160977B2 · Poulin · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8171038B2 · Tomicki et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8706659B1 · Mann et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8793781B2 · Grossi et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9436726B2 · Matthews · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9602559B1 · Barros et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20020107698A1 · Brown et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20080033929A1 · Al-Kofahi et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20100121707A1 · Goeldi · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 20110078142A1 · Hillary · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20110191335A1 · Miller et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120278064A1 · Leary · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20120310841A1 · Payne · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130173333A1 · Zhang · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20130297619A1 · Chandrasekaran · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20150106170A1 · Bonica · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20170220129A1 · Wu · 2017 [cited by examiner]
An Introduction to Sentiment Analysis (Opinion Mining), Julio Villena, Oct. 13, 2015, https://www.meaningcloud.com/blog/an-introduction-to-sentiment-analysis-opinion-mining-in-meaningcloud (Year: 2015). [cited by examiner]
Gerrish Sean M. et al., Predicting Legislative Roll Calls from Text, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, 2011, pp. 1-11. [cited by applicant]
Gerrish, Sean M, et al., How They Vote: Issue-Adjusted Models of Legislative Behavior, 26 [cited by applicant]
Sebastiani, Fabrizio, Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 34, No. 1, Mar. 2002, pp. 1-47. [cited by applicant]
Wang, Jun et al., Legislative Prediction via Random Walks over a Heterogeneous Graph, Business Analytics and Mathematical Sciences Department, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, 2012, pp. 1095-1106. [cited by applicant]
Yano, Tae et al., Textual Predictors of Bill Survival in Congressional Committees, 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Jun. 3-8, 2… [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Prophecy,” dated Dec. 11, 2013 (7 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“Government Relations Use Case,” dated Dec. 16, 2013 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Prophecy “Unlocking Legislative Data and Making it Useful for Government Affairs Professionals,” dated Feb. 19, 2014 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Prophecy “Applying Real-time Analytics to Make Government Data Actionable,” dated Feb. 26, 2014 (12 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“FiscalNote Prophecy For Academia,” dated May 19, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Predictive Analytics for Legislation & Regulation,” dated Jul. 17, 2015 (21 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy—FiscalNote “Legislative Data, Analyzed,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Premium—FiscalNote “For Ultimate Effectiveness,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Sonar “Regulatory Tracking and Analytics,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (14 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Sonar—FiscalNote “Regulatory Data, Redefined,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Using Document-Analysis to Provide Insights,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (8 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Legislative and Regulatory Analytics,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (23 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Take Control of Your Government Affairs Strategy,” dated Sep. 16, 2015 (34 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Sonar “Regulatory Tracking and Analytics,” dated Sep. 17, 2015 (14 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“Legislator Scorecard,” dated Sep. 29, 2015 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Sonar “Regulatory Data, Redefined,” dated Sep. 29, 2015 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Premium “Prophecy Premium Goes Beyond Tracking and Analysis, with Powerful Tools for Reaching out and Getting Results,” dated Sep. 29, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Plus “Prophecy Plus Combines Legislative Tracking with Revolutionary Predictive Analytics to Keep You One Step Ahead,” dated Sep. 29, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Basic Discovery & Tracking “Prophecy Basic Puts Everything you Need to Find and Track Relevant Legislation in One, Simple Place,” dated Sep. 29, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Prophecy, “Track Legislation Across all 50 States D.C. and Congress,” dated Jan. 13, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Mailing List “Create Highly Targeted Lists in Minutes/Prophecy Keeps Your Lists up to Date Automatically,” dated Jan. 13, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote—Data Indexing, “Centralizing open data from over 100 scattered government sources into one user friendly platform,” dated Mar. 21, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning to Forecast Legislative Outcomes,” dated Aug. 14, 2015 (10 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Data Science in the World of Policy,” dated Sep. 22, 2015 (16 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“Prophecy Legislator Analytics,” dated Sep. 25, 2015 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“How Educated Algorithms Give Us Insightful Answers,” dated Sep. 30, 2015 (9 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Using Document Analysis to Provide Insights,” dated Sep. 30, 2015 (6 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “The ‘Moneyball Approach to Capitol Hill,’” dated Oct. 2, 2015 (6 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Determining Sentiment on Federal Regulations,” dated Oct. 12, 2015 (8 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
“Legislator Scorecard™,” dated Oct. 26, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
Fiscal Note “FiscalNote and the Three Types of Analytics,” dated Apr. 14, 2016 (13 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Taking Control of Regulatory Risk Can Have Large Return on Investment,” dated Jun. 14, 2016 (5 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “Aggregating Data into a Unified Platform,” dated Jun. 14, 2016 (7 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “The Buyer's Guide to Legislative Tracking Tools,” dated Sep. 22, 2015 (6 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Prophecy Discussion, Prophecy Basic, Plus & Premium “Keep Everyone on your Team Informed . . . ” dated Sep. 25, 2015 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “5 Reasons to Use a Legislative Tracking Service,” dated Sep. 30, 2015 (4 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote “How to Plan a Fly-In Day with FiscalNote,” dated Sep. 30, 2015 (5 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Marketplace “FiscalNote offers our subscribers industry-leading analysis . . . ,” dated Jan. 13, 2016 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Professional Services “Legislator Scorecard,” dated Jan. 27, 2016 (2 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
Atlantis State Regulations, Simplified “Need Easily Accessible State Regulatory Data . . . ,” dated Feb. 18, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Discussions “Keep Everyone on Your Team Informed . . . ,” dated Apr. 22, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Actions “Log Efforts Made and Stay in Sync with Team Strategies,” dated Apr. 22, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Notes “Record Information, Intelligence and Strategy,” dated Apr. 22, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
“Forecasting Legislative Outcomes,” dated Apr. 26, 2016 (4 pgs.). [cited by applicant]
FiscalNote Collaboration Tools “Everything You Need to Strategize with Your Team, All in One Place,” dated May 24, 2016 (1 pg.). [cited by applicant]
Defendant's Opening Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in [cited by applicant]
Plaintiff's Answering Brief in opposition of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in [cited by applicant]
Defendant's Reply Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in [cited by applicant]
Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in [cited by applicant]
Cited By (1)
US 12,627,569