US20040107089A1 - Email text checker system and method - Google Patents
Email text checker system and method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20040107089A1 US20040107089A1 US10/723,370 US72337003A US2004107089A1 US 20040107089 A1 US20040107089 A1 US 20040107089A1 US 72337003 A US72337003 A US 72337003A US 2004107089 A1 US2004107089 A1 US 2004107089A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- word
- words
- meaning
- document
- user
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F40/00—Handling natural language data
- G06F40/20—Natural language analysis
- G06F40/232—Orthographic correction, e.g. spell checking or vowelisation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F40/00—Handling natural language data
- G06F40/20—Natural language analysis
- G06F40/253—Grammatical analysis; Style critique
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management
- G06Q10/107—Computer-aided management of electronic mailing [e-mailing]
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L51/00—User-to-user messaging in packet-switching networks, transmitted according to store-and-forward or real-time protocols, e.g. e-mail
- H04L51/21—Monitoring or handling of messages
- H04L51/212—Monitoring or handling of messages using filtering or selective blocking
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L51/00—User-to-user messaging in packet-switching networks, transmitted according to store-and-forward or real-time protocols, e.g. e-mail
- H04L51/21—Monitoring or handling of messages
- H04L51/214—Monitoring or handling of messages using selective forwarding
Definitions
- the present invention relates to authoring tools that can be used in connection with contemporary word processing programs.
- the present invention provides an author of an electronically drafted document with a word checker that checks for and identifies inappropriate word choices in such document based on a sensitivity scheme of the user's choosing so that such words may be modified if necessary.
- the word “ask” may be inadvertently written as “ass,” and unless the message is intended to discuss issues pertaining to certain members of the animal kingdom, it is likely to be an inappropriate word choice. If these inadvertent mistakes are not caught by the drafter during a later review, they will be included in such document and potentially communicated to one or more third parties. Depending on the severity of the mistake, the receiving audience, and the scope of the distribution of the document, the consequences may range from minor embarassment to substantial financial loss from lost future business with such third party.
- Stamps et. al. is not truly a “word” checker, but, rather, an enhanced spell checker that has been sensitized to a particular user's poor spelling habits. While it incidentally determines whether a word is perhaps not the intended choice of the author (i.e., that the word does not have a particular meaning), it does not perform the important step of determining the precise meaning of the word, and in particular whether the word also has a potentially inappropriate meaning as well.
- An object of the present invention therefore is to reduce the number of unintentional inappropriate word choices within electronic documents that would otherwise go unnoticed using conventional word processing document checking tools so as to improve the integrity and accuracy of such documents;
- Another object of the present invention is to provide a system and method that is easily and seamlessly integratable into conventional word processing document checking tools so as to enhance the performance of such tools;
- a related object of the present invention is to provide a system and method for filtering and verifying the contents of one or more electronic documents to determine the presence of potentially inappropriate and unintended word choices;
- Yet a further object of the present invention is to reduce the number of intentional but unknowingly inappropriate word choices within electronic documents that would otherwise go unnoticed using conventional word processing document checking tools;
- a related object is to improve the performance of present day word processing document checking tools by providing an additional verification tool that confirms the appropriateness of the selections made by such prior art checking tools;
- Another object of the present invention is to permit a user of a word processing program to selectively control the level of sensitivity to be used for determining whether words in an electronic document are potentially inappropriate;
- Still another object of the present invention is to permit an author of an electronic document to have the words of such document analyzed and processed by a number of context filters of the author's choosing to reduce the number of potential inappropriate words in such document.
- a word checking software routine (implementable as a stand-alone program or integrated with a conventional spell checker) that checks the meaning of words in an electronic document authored by a user.
- word-checking for the document is desired by the user, the words from the document are retrieved one at time, and checked against entries in an electronic dictionary to determine whether they have a particular meaning that has been designated as potentially inappropriate for use in a text document. The determination is made based on comparing a threshold sensitivity level (which can be controlled by the user) with an appropriateness rating found in one or more status fields associated with the word. If the word in question has a rating higher than the threshold set by the user, an alert is provided to indicate such result.
- a threshold sensitivity level which can be controlled by the user
- status fields are used.
- the status fields can be used essentially as multiple context filters for assisting an author in reducing the number of potentially inappropriate words as they may be conveyed to multiple intended audiences.
- the ratings for the words in any of the status fields can have any range of values and are preferably coded at the time the words are placed into the electronic dictionary. They can also be modified by the user, later, if desired.
- the present invention is completely integratable with a conventional spell-checking program, so that the spelling of a word can also be analyzed before its meaning is also checked.
- a mis-spelled word is found, a user can select from a list of accurately spelled substitute words instead, but such substitute word is also checked to see if has a meaning that is potentially inappropriate for use in a text document.
- Another variation of the present invention permits a user to specify a set of documents to word-check, and to generate an output indicating the results of such check.
- the meaning of the words in the document are checked during an idle state of the word processing program, so that the operation of checking the entire document at the user's request at a later time can be reduced in time because it will already have been partially completed.
- another embodiment of the present invention checks the meanings of words substantially immediate in time after they are input into the document by the user. This can ensure that a potential word problem is in fact brought to the user's attention automatically and without the need for a further command from the user.
- the electronic dictionary used in the present invention includes a series of records corresponding to words and their associated status field values.
- the data for these records are input in electronic form to create a set of words in computer readable form for the dictionary, along with status fields associated for each of such words.
- the status fields indicate whether such word has a meaning that is potentially inappropriate for use in a particular context.
- the dictionary is constituted, any number of status fields can be used to correspond to different sensitivity ratings for different target audiences.
- the present invention can be included within a word checking software module that is itself embodied and transferred in computer readable form, such as a floppy disk, a hard disk, a CD-ROM, a magnetic tape, or a non-volatile semiconductor memory.
- a new type of computer system is effectuated which permits an author to perform a word checking operation on an electronic text document generated by a conventional word processing program running on such system.
- FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a word processing system embodying the teachings of the present invention
- FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating the operation of a document word checking tool implemented in accordance with the teachings of the present invention
- FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating a variation of the present invention adapted for checking words in a number of electronic documents specified by a user.
- FIG. 1 illustrates a physical implementation of a preferred embodiment of a system employing the present invention.
- a user can interact with a word processing program 10 loaded in a system memory of a conventional computing system, such as a personal computer.
- Such programs typically include a spell checking routine or module 20 , broken out visually in the present figure for clarification.
- the inventive routine of the present invention is also illustrated as word checker routine or module 30 .
- Both spell checking routine 20 and word checker routine 30 have access to and can store/retrieve entries from a standard electronic dictionary 40 , which, again, is well-known in the art. It is understood, of course that spell checking routine 20 and word checker routine 30 may be embedded as one software module of program 10 , or alternatively, may be constituted as separate programs that interacts with program 10 and each other. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that a number of separate modules (i.e., for controlling printing, document loading, etc.) of program 20 are not shown, but they are not material to the teachings of the present invention. A document 40 is also shown, and this item can be generated and controlled by a user using word processing program 10 in a conventional manner well-known in the art.
- word checker routine 30 begins to retrieve and analyse words from document 10 in a manner well-known in the art from similar techniques used in conventional spell-checkers.
- spell checker routine 20 and word checker routine 30 are “integrated” in the sense that they are invoked together and inter-operate with each other.
- the word from the document is first spell-checked in the manner known in the prior art. For example, if the word is not found in electronic dictionary 50 at step 220 , spell checker routine 20 is invoked at 225 .
- a set of suitable alternative words are presented to a user at step 230 as replacements for the unidentified word.
- the method of the present invention is not different in any material fashion from prior art spelling programs.
- step 235 a substantial difference is found in the fact that the present invention does not blindly permit the user to select one of the alternatives presented at step 230 .
- the word selected by the user is also checked to see if it is flagged as potentially context restricted. In this manner, errors are further reduced, and an additional level of accuracy is achieved.
- the information concerning a rating of the restricted status for the word can be stored in an electronic field associated with a record for such word in a dictionary database, as shown in the breakout of the diagram for dictionary 50 .
- Each entry 51 in dictionary 50 includes a word and one or more associated status fields (SF 1 , SF 2 . . . SF n ), which, in its simplest form, can be a single bit field that is either set or not set, depending on whether the word has been previously designated as potentially inappropriate.
- This status bit can be set either during the creation of dictionary 40 , or at the request of a user later on, much in the same way new words can be added to auxiliary or supplemental dictionaries used in conventional spell-checking programs.
- status field SF 1 can be allocated sufficient coding bits so that it may have any one of N possible values, where N represents a rating indicating a relative ranking of inappropriateness.
- N represents a rating indicating a relative ranking of inappropriateness.
- This feature allows a degree of grading the words of a vocabulary in shades of grey so to speak, and permits more precise control by the user of the level of inappropriateness that can be tolerated within any particular document. For example, using a scale from 1-10, words that are known and commonly used in a vulgar or offensive fashion can be given a 10 value rating, while words that are commonly understood in only harmless contexts can be given a 1 rating. Other words that are not as fixed in meaning or easily classifiable can be given value ratings in between this range, again, depending on their common usage within a particular target audience.
- Associated status fields SF 1 , SF 2 , etc. can be used to generate different and unique sets of inappropriate words for different intended recipient groups. While only three status fields are shown to simplify the present discussion, it is understood that any number may be used in connection with an electronic dictionary.
- the ratings found in field SF 1 can be based on word meanings for a typical U.S. based English speaking audience, while SF 2 might be used to indicate the rating for the same word for a different target audience (i.e., a different language speaking group, a different geographic group within the same country, or an audience with specific sensitivities to certain types of words).
- the ratings for status fields SF 1 , SF 2 , SF 3 may be derived from survey results, from polling the intended audience populations, from analyzing other published literature materials for such intended groups, from organizations specializing in advertising and marketing, etc.
- One advantage of the present invention over the prior art lies in the fact that the ratings of dictionary words 41 can be pre-programmed, instead of requiring a user to inspect each entry and designate the status manually. It is expected that such ratings could be generated by persons skilled in the art of contemporary language usage, or persons having particular knowledge or understanding of terminology used in specific fields, or by specific target audience groups, using some of the reference materials (e.g. surveys and the like) described immediately above.
- the words and associated ratings can be put into computer readable form at the time of the creation of the dictionary by the vendor of word processing program 10 , or by a supplier of dictionary 50 using a conventional database structure with accessible records or the like.
- step 235 merely checks such separate dictionary 50 ′ to see if the word has been included in the class of potentially inappropriate words.
- a number of implementations may be employed for designating potentially offensive words and the present invention is not limited to any of the examples shown herein.
- step 220 , 235 and 230 would not occur.
- word checker routine 30 is invoked as another typical word processing tool within document 40
- the present routine progresses directly from step 215 to step 235 where the word is checked.
- the key aspect of the present invention lies in the fact that the meaning or substance of words, not simply the spelling of such words, are determined and verified.
- a user of word processing program 10 is able to control both: (1) the range of status fields SF 1 , SF 2 , etc.
- a user of program 10 can decide to utilize any one or more of such filters in connection with the word checking of document 40 , and the selection of such filters can be accomplished in any one of several known ways (i.e., highlighting desired filters presented in the form of a list, specifying them by name, etc.)
- the user can also determine (if desired) the threshold level of sensitivity to be used during the checking of words in document 40 . In other words, when a particular status field SF 1 can have a value ranging from 1 to 10, the user can specifically indicate that only words having a status field value in excess of 8 should be considered as potentially inappropriate.
- the present invention behaves as a superior spell-checker, because it catches even correctly spelled words that are nonetheless incorrect (from the user's intent perspective) because they are based on other words inadvertently mis-spelled originally by the user.
- the user had a word with spelling “xyzzy” in mind, but this word was inadvertently input as “xyyzy.” If“xyyzy” (the transformed embodiment of“xyzzy”) is nevertheless a word in a spell-checking dictionary, the prior art techniques will never detect this mistake as a true error, even though it is undesirable from the user's perspective, and perhaps worse, may lead to significant embarrassment if undetected.
- the present invention affords a significantly higher level of confidence to the user that documents will be generated error and embarassment free. This kind of tool is especially helpful because of the fact that electronic communications occur in rapid fashion, and dissemination of electronic documents can take place with little chance or opportunity for correcting mistakes.
- an alert is given to the user at step 240 .
- the alert can take the form of highlighting the word in the text of the document with an accompanying warning that can be either visual, audible or both.
- the alert can also indicate the identity of the filter that was triggered by the word when more than one status field is used during the word checking process. Again, the precise implementation of the warning is not critical, and any one of many known methods in the art can be used.
- the user can decide at step 245 whether the word is truly inappropriate, and if so, the user can provide a substitute word, or override the program to keep the word as is.
- the substitute word can be provided directly by the user, or a set of suitable alternatives can be presented in the same way conventional spell checking program 20 provides users with such lists. Again, this substitute selection is nevertheless also inspected and verified for its appopriateness by virtue of the fact that the routine branches back to step 220 . In this manner, the potential for erroneous inclusion of offensive or inappropriate language is further minimized.
- an option can be presented to the user at step 250 for reducing the value of the status field for the word so that it will not be identified as a potentially inappropriate word during a subsequent check (unless a lower threshold is used of course). This might be desirable, for example, in certain fields of use where ostensibly inappropriate words may be nevertheless otherwise acceptable for use in common communications.
- a user can modify the status of the word in dictionary 50 or 50 ′ as the case may be.
- the present invention can be used for batch inspection and verification of electronic documents, as shown in FIG. 3.
- an electronic file to be word checked can instead be specified at step 305 by a user.
- This type of capability is common in word-processing programs 10 today, and permits a user to select a number of files that are to to undergo a particular operation without opening them.
- a print operation can be effectuated on a user specified list of files.
- the present invention as embodied in a word checker routine 30 can operate on a number of files at shown at step 310 .
- an optional spell checking routine 320 first determines if there is mis-spelling of such word, and, if so, tags the word as such at step 325 . If the word is otherwise identifiable because it is in dictionary 40 or alternate dictionary 40 ′, it is context checked at step 330 in the manner described above and with the same degree of available control by the user. Each word identified as potentially inappropriate is flagged and tagged at step 335 before the routine returns to process the next word.
- a list of mis-spelled words and identified potentially misappropriate words is generated for the user's review. This list can be displayed visually, generated as a text file, etc. so the user can determine whether there are potential problems in disseminating such electronic files, and, take corrective action if necessary.
- Yet another variation of the present invention makes use of a concept disclosed in the Mogilevsky reference discussed above.
- spell checking routine 20 and word checker routine 30 can be implemented in a well-known fashion that improves performance by having them operate while there is no interaction going on between the user and word processing program 10 .
- the routine can take advantage of otherwise idle time by checking the document and other open documents if the user is not actively engaged in an operation requiring immediate attention by word processing program 20 . It is apparent that such variations of the present invention could be beneficial in a number of environments.
- Another useful variation of the present invention can be implemented to take advantage of another well-known concept in the art, and that is the use of “dynamic” text checking.
- the Travis reference above explains how words can be spell-checked on the fly, i.e., as the user is typing in many conventional word processing programs. This feature permits a user to enter a word, and then have it checked while he or she is still typing, and while their attention is still focused on the document.
- the spell checking routine 20 automatically substitutes the closest choice it finds for commonly misspelled words; for example, the type word “teh” is changed rapidly to, “the” while the user is perhaps still entering text.
- a dynamic word-checking feature can be implemented, and it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that this approach is merely a variation of the procedure described in FIG. 2, except that the words retrieved at step 215 , are fetched in a background task which is running even while the user is engaged in normal text entry, editing, etc.
- the word-checker routine 30 merely appears as an add-on verification tool feature to spell-checker 20 , with additional functionality and benefits for reducing document errors. To minimize errors, the result of the word-check is communicated as quickly as possible to the user, subject to system performance limitations of course.
- the present invention can be seen as a useful tool for not only reducing unintentional errors in electronic text documents, but also some intentional errors that are not necessarily understood or appreciated by the user of a word processing program 20 .
- a word input by a user may be classified by in an number of ways including: (1) an intentional selection that is appropriate; (2) an intentional selection that is inappropriate; (3) an unintentional selection that is inappropriate; or (4) an unintentional selection that is appropriate (in the sense that it is perhaps non-offensive even if it is inapposite for the context). Of these classifications, it is clear that the first category (1) do not require any remedial action.
- the present invention is a simple, fast and cost-effective tool that can be used to easily identify the category (2) and (3) errors above.
- category (3) items it is a rather simple matter as described above to identify and classify entries in an electronic dictionary with varying status field values reflecting their common usage in a particular context. Any number of potentially offensive, crude, vulgar, obscene or inappropriate words are included in an electronic dictionary for the sake of completeness (and for ease of integration from text to electronic form) but it is rarely the case that they are desired to be used in communication and they can be identified by setting the associated status field to a high value.
- the category (2) items are somewhat more subtle, but it is apparent that some words, even if consciously selected, may nevertheless be inappropriate because of a number of cultural considerations, or simply because they are generally misused by the general population of authors. As an example, a considerable amount of attention has been focussed recently in the U.S. on eliminating gender specific vocabulary except where absolutely necessary.
- a business entity attempting to sell products or services to a primarily female based clientele may benefit from a word checking tool that is sensitive to potential gender issues raised by language found in documents intended to be communicated to such clientele to reduce the possibility of an miscommunication. Many ethnic groups have particular words or phrases that are considered inappropriate or offensive by them, even if they otherwise understood as inoffensive by other groups.
- dictionaries could supplement traditional electronic dictionary 50 and be invoked as needed by a user of word processing program 10 , so that any one or more of a number of word checking verifications or document filtrations could be performed depending on the target audience intended to recieve such document.
- Such additional dictionaries, or additional status field values for a particular filter could be created in a number of ways, including as additional incorporations in the original dictionary 50 , or by the vendor or user of computer program 10 modifying dictionary 50 at a later time.
- word processing program 10 spell-checking program 20 and word-checking program 30 described above can be embodied in well-known ways in an article of manufacture such as in traditional computer-readable media commonly used to transport such programs. These can include a floppy disk, tape, hard disk, CD-ROM or equivalent non-volatile storage system. In this format, they can be transported easily and loaded via a host computer into system memory for execution.
- the above routines can be implemented as part of a non-volatile storage portion of a stand-alone integrated circuit, or embedded as part of a non-volatile storage structure in an architecture of a typical microprocessor or RISC processor.
- the instructions for carrying out such routines can be encoded or implemented in a silicon substrate as is done with other program ROMs, and using conventional manufacturing techniques.
Abstract
Description
- The present invention relates to authoring tools that can be used in connection with contemporary word processing programs. In particular, the present invention provides an author of an electronically drafted document with a word checker that checks for and identifies inappropriate word choices in such document based on a sensitivity scheme of the user's choosing so that such words may be modified if necessary.
- The prior art is replete with word processing programs, including a couple of contemporary favorites, Microsoft WORD and Novell's Wordperfect, that are used by a substantial portion of IBM-compatible computer users. These programs are used in known ways for permitting authors to create electronic text (and graphics) documents. As a part of such word processing program, a spell-checking routine is almost always included to help authors reduce the number of unintentional text errors in such documents. A number of prior art patents are directed to this feature, and a reasonable background of the same is described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,604,897 to Travis and U.S. Pat. No. 5,649,222 to Mogilevsky, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
- It is apparent, however, that spell-checking routines associated with such word processing programs have a number of limitations. Key among these is the fact that they cannot determine whether a particular word choice, while accurately spelled, is nevertheless perhaps inappropriate for the particular context within a particular document. As an example, many words that may be intended by a drafter (such as the words “ask,” “suit,” “public,” etc.) can be transformed into potentially offensive words merely by changing a single letter in such words, transposing a few letters, or by mistakenly adding or dropping a letter. These transformed words, however, will still pass the spell-checking facility, because many of them include even a number of offensive words as part of their standard dictionary. For example, the word “ask” may be inadvertently written as “ass,” and unless the message is intended to discuss issues pertaining to certain members of the animal kingdom, it is likely to be an inappropriate word choice. If these inadvertent mistakes are not caught by the drafter during a later review, they will be included in such document and potentially communicated to one or more third parties. Depending on the severity of the mistake, the receiving audience, and the scope of the distribution of the document, the consequences may range from minor embarassment to substantial financial loss from lost future business with such third party.
- The possibility of such errors is increasing each day because of a number of driving factors, including the fact that standard dictionaries for word processors are growing in size to accommodate the largest number of words of course in a particular language. While one solution may be to not include such words in an electronic dictionary in the first place, this result makes the creation of such dictionaries more complicated because an initial censoring must be done before the words are even translated into electronic form. Moreover, this solution does not help the user to identify inappropriate words that may be skipped over during a spell-checking routine.
- Another factor leading to increase in electronic word choice errors is the fact that many electronic documents are never reduced to a physical form before being disseminated. In many instances a glaring error is caught by a human inspection of a printed page before it is sent out. The so-called “paperless office” while improving efficiency and reducing waste also naturally causes a larger number of inadvertent message errors in text documents. Additional errors can even be induced by spell-checkers because when they detect a mis-spelled word, they will often provide a menu of potential word choices as replacements, and it is remarkably easy to select an inappropriate word choice from such menu, again merely by accident. Such errors of course will not be detected because the document is erroneously considered to be “safe” by many users after spell-checking has completed and they will not check it again. In other words, some facility for checking the spell-checker dynamically is also desirable, but does not exist at this time.
- There is some facility in the prior art for permitting users to create so-called “exclusion” dictionaries for analyzing text documents. An example of such kind of system is illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 5,437,036 to Stamps et. al. which is incorporated by reference herein. A drawback of this approach, however, lies in the fact that it requires the user to both divine and manually input all the potential mis-spellings that could occur, and even if they had the time, there are obviously an endless variety that might never be considered by such user. For example, a user may not have the foresight to notice that a simple transposing of two characters (a common error) may generate a word that is extremely offensive. Furthermore Stamps et. al. do not appear to contemplate the possibility that the act of rendering a document “spelling” error free may itself generate unintended word selection errors. As such, therefore, Stamps et. al. is not truly a “word” checker, but, rather, an enhanced spell checker that has been sensitized to a particular user's poor spelling habits. While it incidentally determines whether a word is perhaps not the intended choice of the author (i.e., that the word does not have a particular meaning), it does not perform the important step of determining the precise meaning of the word, and in particular whether the word also has a potentially inappropriate meaning as well.
- A few methods for proof-reading electronic documents are also known in the art. A U.S. Pat. No. 4,674,065 to Lange et. al., also incorporated by reference herein, describes a technique for detecting word context errors in a document. This technique seems limited to homophones however (for example, it knows to see if a user intended to use the word “course” instead of “coarse”) and is not generally applicable to the problem of determining inappropriate use of language in documents. For example, unless a particularly offensive word has a homonym, Lange et. al. would not even detect such word as being a problem. The approach of Lange et. al. further requires a fair amount of computational complexity, since it must analyze the text preceeding and following after a word and use a complicates set of syntax rules to determine whether the word is being used in context correctly. This fact alone makes it essentially unusable for most contemporary word processing programs which utilize background spell checking, dynamic spell-checking, etc.
- Finally, a U.S. Pat. No. 4,456,973 to Cargren et al., and also incorporated by reference herein, discusses the use of an electronic word dictionary that has an associated code field for indicating the level of comprehensibility of such word. For example, the word “abandon” is coded with a numerical designation 6, indicating that the word is probably understandable by children at the 6th grade level. Cargren et al., however, do not appear to address the more general problem of identifying text that has been inadvertently mis-spelled by an author, and which is likely to be inappropriate. In other words, the Cargren al. approach presumes that the user has correctly input the word in question, and unless the word is coded with a rating below that of the intended grade group of children, it is not flagged in anyway. It is apparent that this method of encoding is fairly impractical for use in an electronic dictionary intended to be used by an adult population, because adults are not classified in this way. In fact, if a target audience of a document is intended to be primarily adults, then the Carlgren et al. approach would not flag any words at all, because they would probably be presumed to be operating at the highest level of education (12), thus rendering this type of filtering essentially useless. In addition, there is no facility mentioned by Cargren et al. for detecting words that are likely to be offensive, even if consciously selected by the author. For example, the use of the word “dame” may be consciously selected but nevertheless undesirable in communications in which the intended audience is primarily adult women. A drafter of an electronic document may desire to be notified of such potentially offensive words if they are known to be sensitive.
- An object of the present invention therefore is to reduce the number of unintentional inappropriate word choices within electronic documents that would otherwise go unnoticed using conventional word processing document checking tools so as to improve the integrity and accuracy of such documents;
- Another object of the present invention is to provide a system and method that is easily and seamlessly integratable into conventional word processing document checking tools so as to enhance the performance of such tools;
- A related object of the present invention is to provide a system and method for filtering and verifying the contents of one or more electronic documents to determine the presence of potentially inappropriate and unintended word choices;
- Yet a further object of the present invention is to reduce the number of intentional but unknowingly inappropriate word choices within electronic documents that would otherwise go unnoticed using conventional word processing document checking tools;
- A related object is to improve the performance of present day word processing document checking tools by providing an additional verification tool that confirms the appropriateness of the selections made by such prior art checking tools;
- Another object of the present invention is to permit a user of a word processing program to selectively control the level of sensitivity to be used for determining whether words in an electronic document are potentially inappropriate;
- Still another object of the present invention is to permit an author of an electronic document to have the words of such document analyzed and processed by a number of context filters of the author's choosing to reduce the number of potential inappropriate words in such document.
- These and other objects are achieved by the present invention which includes a word checking software routine (implementable as a stand-alone program or integrated with a conventional spell checker) that checks the meaning of words in an electronic document authored by a user. When word-checking for the document is desired by the user, the words from the document are retrieved one at time, and checked against entries in an electronic dictionary to determine whether they have a particular meaning that has been designated as potentially inappropriate for use in a text document. The determination is made based on comparing a threshold sensitivity level (which can be controlled by the user) with an appropriateness rating found in one or more status fields associated with the word. If the word in question has a rating higher than the threshold set by the user, an alert is provided to indicate such result.
- In another embodiment, multiple status fields are used. The status fields can be used essentially as multiple context filters for assisting an author in reducing the number of potentially inappropriate words as they may be conveyed to multiple intended audiences. The ratings for the words in any of the status fields can have any range of values and are preferably coded at the time the words are placed into the electronic dictionary. They can also be modified by the user, later, if desired.
- The present invention is completely integratable with a conventional spell-checking program, so that the spelling of a word can also be analyzed before its meaning is also checked. When a mis-spelled word is found, a user can select from a list of accurately spelled substitute words instead, but such substitute word is also checked to see if has a meaning that is potentially inappropriate for use in a text document.
- Another variation of the present invention permits a user to specify a set of documents to word-check, and to generate an output indicating the results of such check.
- In yet another embodiment, the meaning of the words in the document are checked during an idle state of the word processing program, so that the operation of checking the entire document at the user's request at a later time can be reduced in time because it will already have been partially completed.
- To further reduce errors, another embodiment of the present invention checks the meanings of words substantially immediate in time after they are input into the document by the user. This can ensure that a potential word problem is in fact brought to the user's attention automatically and without the need for a further command from the user.
- The electronic dictionary used in the present invention includes a series of records corresponding to words and their associated status field values. The data for these records are input in electronic form to create a set of words in computer readable form for the dictionary, along with status fields associated for each of such words. Again, as mentioned above, the status fields indicate whether such word has a meaning that is potentially inappropriate for use in a particular context. As the dictionary is constituted, any number of status fields can be used to correspond to different sensitivity ratings for different target audiences.
- The present invention can be included within a word checking software module that is itself embodied and transferred in computer readable form, such as a floppy disk, a hard disk, a CD-ROM, a magnetic tape, or a non-volatile semiconductor memory. In this way, a new type of computer system is effectuated which permits an author to perform a word checking operation on an electronic text document generated by a conventional word processing program running on such system.
- FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a word processing system embodying the teachings of the present invention;
- FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating the operation of a document word checking tool implemented in accordance with the teachings of the present invention;
- FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating a variation of the present invention adapted for checking words in a number of electronic documents specified by a user.
- FIG. 1 illustrates a physical implementation of a preferred embodiment of a system employing the present invention. A user can interact with a
word processing program 10 loaded in a system memory of a conventional computing system, such as a personal computer. Such programs typically include a spell checking routine ormodule 20, broken out visually in the present figure for clarification. The inventive routine of the present invention is also illustrated as word checker routine ormodule 30. - Both
spell checking routine 20 andword checker routine 30 have access to and can store/retrieve entries from a standardelectronic dictionary 40, which, again, is well-known in the art. It is understood, of course that spell checkingroutine 20 andword checker routine 30 may be embedded as one software module ofprogram 10, or alternatively, may be constituted as separate programs that interacts withprogram 10 and each other. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that a number of separate modules (i.e., for controlling printing, document loading, etc.) ofprogram 20 are not shown, but they are not material to the teachings of the present invention. Adocument 40 is also shown, and this item can be generated and controlled by a user usingword processing program 10 in a conventional manner well-known in the art. - Again, while the present illustration depicts the various routines, documents and dictionaries as separate entities, it is understood that this is a simplified description intended to convey the key concepts of the present invention. During normal operation of
word processing program 20 these various entities are typically loaded from a non-volatile memory storage device (such as a magnetic hard disk) and then coexist in a physical and logical sense within the same system memory. - A flowchart of the operation of a preferred embodiment of the present invention is depicted in FIG. 2. When
word checker routine 30 is invoked atstep 210, it begins to retrieve and analyse words fromdocument 10 in a manner well-known in the art from similar techniques used in conventional spell-checkers. In one variationspell checker routine 20 andword checker routine 30 are “integrated” in the sense that they are invoked together and inter-operate with each other. In this variation, the word from the document is first spell-checked in the manner known in the prior art. For example, if the word is not found inelectronic dictionary 50 atstep 220,spell checker routine 20 is invoked at 225. Again, using conventional techniques, a set of suitable alternative words are presented to a user atstep 230 as replacements for the unidentified word. - At this point the method of the present invention is not different in any material fashion from prior art spelling programs. At
step 235, however, a substantial difference is found in the fact that the present invention does not blindly permit the user to select one of the alternatives presented atstep 230. As mentioned above, there is a non-insignificant chance of error presented when large lists of words are presented to users during spell-checking routines. It is altogether too easy to select the wrong word, and worse yet, a very inappropriate word. For this reason, atstep 235, the word selected by the user is also checked to see if it is flagged as potentially context restricted. In this manner, errors are further reduced, and an additional level of accuracy is achieved. - In one implementation the information concerning a rating of the restricted status for the word can be stored in an electronic field associated with a record for such word in a dictionary database, as shown in the breakout of the diagram for
dictionary 50. Eachentry 51 indictionary 50 includes a word and one or more associated status fields (SF1, SF2 . . . SFn), which, in its simplest form, can be a single bit field that is either set or not set, depending on whether the word has been previously designated as potentially inappropriate. This status bit can be set either during the creation ofdictionary 40, or at the request of a user later on, much in the same way new words can be added to auxiliary or supplemental dictionaries used in conventional spell-checking programs. - In another embodiment, status field SF1 can be allocated sufficient coding bits so that it may have any one of N possible values, where N represents a rating indicating a relative ranking of inappropriateness. This feature allows a degree of grading the words of a vocabulary in shades of grey so to speak, and permits more precise control by the user of the level of inappropriateness that can be tolerated within any particular document. For example, using a scale from 1-10, words that are known and commonly used in a vulgar or offensive fashion can be given a 10 value rating, while words that are commonly understood in only harmless contexts can be given a 1 rating. Other words that are not as fixed in meaning or easily classifiable can be given value ratings in between this range, again, depending on their common usage within a particular target audience. Associated status fields SF1, SF2, etc., can be used to generate different and unique sets of inappropriate words for different intended recipient groups. While only three status fields are shown to simplify the present discussion, it is understood that any number may be used in connection with an electronic dictionary. For instance, the ratings found in field SF1 can be based on word meanings for a typical U.S. based English speaking audience, while SF2 might be used to indicate the rating for the same word for a different target audience (i.e., a different language speaking group, a different geographic group within the same country, or an audience with specific sensitivities to certain types of words). The ratings for status fields SF1, SF2, SF3 may be derived from survey results, from polling the intended audience populations, from analyzing other published literature materials for such intended groups, from organizations specializing in advertising and marketing, etc.
- One advantage of the present invention over the prior art lies in the fact that the ratings of dictionary words41 can be pre-programmed, instead of requiring a user to inspect each entry and designate the status manually. It is expected that such ratings could be generated by persons skilled in the art of contemporary language usage, or persons having particular knowledge or understanding of terminology used in specific fields, or by specific target audience groups, using some of the reference materials (e.g. surveys and the like) described immediately above. The words and associated ratings can be put into computer readable form at the time of the creation of the dictionary by the vendor of
word processing program 10, or by a supplier ofdictionary 50 using a conventional database structure with accessible records or the like. - It is equally feasible, of course, that an entirely separate
electronic dictionary 50′ may be designated instead for potentially context restricted words. In this kind ofapproach step 235 merely checks suchseparate dictionary 50′ to see if the word has been included in the class of potentially inappropriate words. In any event, a number of implementations may be employed for designating potentially offensive words and the present invention is not limited to any of the examples shown herein. - In the event the present invention is not embodied in a routine that runs concurrently with
spell checker routine 20, it is apparent thatsteps word checker routine 30 is invoked as another typical word processing tool withindocument 40, the present routine progresses directly fromstep 215 to step 235 where the word is checked. The key aspect of the present invention lies in the fact that the meaning or substance of words, not simply the spelling of such words, are determined and verified. In a preferred embodiment, a user ofword processing program 10 is able to control both: (1) the range of status fields SF1, SF2, etc. to be checked, as well as (2) a threshold level value for such field that should be used in determining whether a particular word should be flagged. These control mechanisms for the user can take the form of menu choices implemented in well-known fashion in typical contemporary spell-checking programs. In this manner, aparticular user document 40 can be subjected to a variety of language “filters” and with varying levels of sensitivity to provide additional functionality and benefits. For example, some U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries nevertheless communicate and advertise in English to the local population, because of the ever increasing English fluency of such countries. Documents intended for such audiences can be subjected to filtering not only for English words that are deemed inappropriate by U.S. citizens, but also which have a negative meaning when transliterated into the language of the country in question. Other users may find it useful to designate one status field simply as a filter for those words that they know are prone to over-use or misuse to increase their writing clarity and proficiency. Accordingly, a user ofprogram 10 can decide to utilize any one or more of such filters in connection with the word checking ofdocument 40, and the selection of such filters can be accomplished in any one of several known ways (i.e., highlighting desired filters presented in the form of a list, specifying them by name, etc.) In addition, the user can also determine (if desired) the threshold level of sensitivity to be used during the checking of words indocument 40. In other words, when a particular status field SF1 can have a value ranging from 1 to 10, the user can specifically indicate that only words having a status field value in excess of 8 should be considered as potentially inappropriate. - In one sense, the present invention behaves as a superior spell-checker, because it catches even correctly spelled words that are nonetheless incorrect (from the user's intent perspective) because they are based on other words inadvertently mis-spelled originally by the user. In other words, the user had a word with spelling “xyzzy” in mind, but this word was inadvertently input as “xyyzy.” If“xyyzy” (the transformed embodiment of“xyzzy”) is nevertheless a word in a spell-checking dictionary, the prior art techniques will never detect this mistake as a true error, even though it is undesirable from the user's perspective, and perhaps worse, may lead to significant embarrassment if undetected. By permitting a user to designate sets of words that should be screened (even if correctly spelled) the present invention affords a significantly higher level of confidence to the user that documents will be generated error and embarassment free. This kind of tool is especially helpful because of the fact that electronic communications occur in rapid fashion, and dissemination of electronic documents can take place with little chance or opportunity for correcting mistakes.
- In any event, should a match occur for the word in question indicating that it falls within the parameters of the user's specification for what should be flagged as an inappropriate word, an alert is given to the user at
step 240. The alert can take the form of highlighting the word in the text of the document with an accompanying warning that can be either visual, audible or both. The alert can also indicate the identity of the filter that was triggered by the word when more than one status field is used during the word checking process. Again, the precise implementation of the warning is not critical, and any one of many known methods in the art can be used. - At this point, the user can decide at
step 245 whether the word is truly inappropriate, and if so, the user can provide a substitute word, or override the program to keep the word as is. The substitute word can be provided directly by the user, or a set of suitable alternatives can be presented in the same way conventionalspell checking program 20 provides users with such lists. Again, this substitute selection is nevertheless also inspected and verified for its appopriateness by virtue of the fact that the routine branches back tostep 220. In this manner, the potential for erroneous inclusion of offensive or inappropriate language is further minimized. - In the event the user decides to stick with the word, an option can be presented to the user at
step 250 for reducing the value of the status field for the word so that it will not be identified as a potentially inappropriate word during a subsequent check (unless a lower threshold is used of course). This might be desirable, for example, in certain fields of use where ostensibly inappropriate words may be nevertheless otherwise acceptable for use in common communications. Atstep 255, therefore, a user can modify the status of the word indictionary - Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention can be used in a number of environments where documents are electronically drafted and have electronic text, including with spreadsheet programs, database programs, e-mail programs, etc. Many of these programs have spell-checking capabilities built in, and the present invention can piggy-back directly on such capability.
- Moreover the present invention can be used for batch inspection and verification of electronic documents, as shown in FIG. 3. Instead of working directly with an
open document 40, for example, an electronic file to be word checked can instead be specified atstep 305 by a user. This type of capability is common in word-processing programs 10 today, and permits a user to select a number of files that are to to undergo a particular operation without opening them. For example, from the FILE OPEN pulldown option in WORDPERFECT, a print operation can be effectuated on a user specified list of files. In this same way, the present invention as embodied in aword checker routine 30 can operate on a number of files at shown atstep 310. As each word is parsed atstep 315, an optional spell checking routine 320 first determines if there is mis-spelling of such word, and, if so, tags the word as such atstep 325. If the word is otherwise identifiable because it is indictionary 40 oralternate dictionary 40′, it is context checked atstep 330 in the manner described above and with the same degree of available control by the user. Each word identified as potentially inappropriate is flagged and tagged atstep 335 before the routine returns to process the next word. At the end of the file word checking operation, a list of mis-spelled words and identified potentially misappropriate words is generated for the user's review. This list can be displayed visually, generated as a text file, etc. so the user can determine whether there are potential problems in disseminating such electronic files, and, take corrective action if necessary. - It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the present invention can be implemented using any one of many known programming languages such as C, C++, Pascal, etc. The details of the specific implementation of the present word checker will vary depending on the programming language used to embody the above principles. Furthermore, while the present discussion has revolved around IBM compatible machines it is equally clear that the present invention is not limited to such environments and can be used with Apple compatible machines, or for that matter with any machine that includes a word processor, including personal digital assistants and similar portable computing devices.
- Yet another variation of the present invention makes use of a concept disclosed in the Mogilevsky reference discussed above. In this manifestation,
spell checking routine 20 and word checker routine 30 (whether integrated or standalone) can be implemented in a well-known fashion that improves performance by having them operate while there is no interaction going on between the user andword processing program 10. In other words, the routine can take advantage of otherwise idle time by checking the document and other open documents if the user is not actively engaged in an operation requiring immediate attention byword processing program 20. It is apparent that such variations of the present invention could be beneficial in a number of environments. - Another useful variation of the present invention can be implemented to take advantage of another well-known concept in the art, and that is the use of “dynamic” text checking. For example, the Travis reference above explains how words can be spell-checked on the fly, i.e., as the user is typing in many conventional word processing programs. This feature permits a user to enter a word, and then have it checked while he or she is still typing, and while their attention is still focused on the document. The spell checking routine20 automatically substitutes the closest choice it finds for commonly misspelled words; for example, the type word “teh” is changed rapidly to, “the” while the user is perhaps still entering text. In a similar vein, a dynamic word-checking feature can be implemented, and it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that this approach is merely a variation of the procedure described in FIG. 2, except that the words retrieved at
step 215, are fetched in a background task which is running even while the user is engaged in normal text entry, editing, etc. From the user's perspective, the word-checker routine 30 merely appears as an add-on verification tool feature to spell-checker 20, with additional functionality and benefits for reducing document errors. To minimize errors, the result of the word-check is communicated as quickly as possible to the user, subject to system performance limitations of course. In any event, with typical computing devices it is expected that such result can be communicated before the user has finished completing data entry of another word that must be checked as well. In some application environments it may be desirable to disable further data input once it has been determined that a potentially inappropriate word has just been entered. - One environment where the dynamic variation is especially useful in e-mail systems where people rarely spell-check a text message after it is composed. Accordingly, the ability to identify and alert users automatically of potential errors is particularly helpful in this area.
- In a general sense the present invention can be seen as a useful tool for not only reducing unintentional errors in electronic text documents, but also some intentional errors that are not necessarily understood or appreciated by the user of a
word processing program 20. In other words, a word input by a user may be classified by in an number of ways including: (1) an intentional selection that is appropriate; (2) an intentional selection that is inappropriate; (3) an unintentional selection that is inappropriate; or (4) an unintentional selection that is appropriate (in the sense that it is perhaps non-offensive even if it is inapposite for the context). Of these classifications, it is clear that the first category (1) do not require any remedial action. It is equally clear that the category (4) mistakes are perhaps undesirable, but are not easily identifiable, and the computational complexity involved in doing so may not be worthwhile. For example, a sentence that reads “I gave my him jacket” instead of “I gave him my jacket” is not accurate but is not offensive. - The present invention, however, is a simple, fast and cost-effective tool that can be used to easily identify the category (2) and (3) errors above. For the category (3) items, it is a rather simple matter as described above to identify and classify entries in an electronic dictionary with varying status field values reflecting their common usage in a particular context. Any number of potentially offensive, crude, vulgar, obscene or inappropriate words are included in an electronic dictionary for the sake of completeness (and for ease of integration from text to electronic form) but it is rarely the case that they are desired to be used in communication and they can be identified by setting the associated status field to a high value. The category (2) items are somewhat more subtle, but it is apparent that some words, even if consciously selected, may nevertheless be inappropriate because of a number of cultural considerations, or simply because they are generally misused by the general population of authors. As an example, a considerable amount of attention has been focussed recently in the U.S. on eliminating gender specific vocabulary except where absolutely necessary. A business entity attempting to sell products or services to a primarily female based clientele may benefit from a word checking tool that is sensitive to potential gender issues raised by language found in documents intended to be communicated to such clientele to reduce the possibility of an miscommunication. Many ethnic groups have particular words or phrases that are considered inappropriate or offensive by them, even if they otherwise understood as inoffensive by other groups. For example, Chevrolet automobiles designated “NOVA” did not sell well in Latin American countries, because the term as translated into Spanish means “does not go.” In addition, many foreigners attempting to write in English often confuse homonyms and substitute the wrong word choice (for example, weather and whether). Similar examples from other fields will be apparent to those skilled in the art. For any such areas, it would be an easy task for a person skilled in the field of contemporary language and familiar with such potentially offensive vocabulary in such specific area to flag such entries in
electronic dictionary 50 by using one of the associated status fields (SF1, SF2, SFn, etc.), and/or to assemble and create a separate customized electronic dictionary of words that potentially implicate inappropriate language for a particular audience. These dictionaries could supplement traditionalelectronic dictionary 50 and be invoked as needed by a user ofword processing program 10, so that any one or more of a number of word checking verifications or document filtrations could be performed depending on the target audience intended to recieve such document. Such additional dictionaries, or additional status field values for a particular filter, could be created in a number of ways, including as additional incorporations in theoriginal dictionary 50, or by the vendor or user ofcomputer program 10 modifyingdictionary 50 at a later time. - Finally,
word processing program 10, spell-checkingprogram 20 and word-checkingprogram 30 described above can be embodied in well-known ways in an article of manufacture such as in traditional computer-readable media commonly used to transport such programs. These can include a floppy disk, tape, hard disk, CD-ROM or equivalent non-volatile storage system. In this format, they can be transported easily and loaded via a host computer into system memory for execution. Alternatively in smaller, self-contained environments, such as personal digital assistants, the above routines can be implemented as part of a non-volatile storage portion of a stand-alone integrated circuit, or embedded as part of a non-volatile storage structure in an architecture of a typical microprocessor or RISC processor. The instructions for carrying out such routines can be encoded or implemented in a silicon substrate as is done with other program ROMs, and using conventional manufacturing techniques. - Although the present invention has been described in terms of a preferred embodiment, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that many alterations and modifications may be made to such embodiments without departing from the teachings of the present invention. Accordingly, it is intended that the all such alterations and modifications be included within the scope and spirit of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
Claims (82)
Priority Applications (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/723,370 US20040107089A1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2003-11-26 | Email text checker system and method |
US10/919,877 US7424674B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2004-08-16 | Document distribution control system and method based on content |
US12/206,599 US9665559B2 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2008-09-08 | Word checking tool for selectively filtering text documents for undesirable or inappropriate content as a function of target audience |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US09/014,414 US6782510B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 1998-01-27 | Word checking tool for controlling the language content in documents using dictionaries with modifyable status fields |
US10/723,370 US20040107089A1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2003-11-26 | Email text checker system and method |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/014,414 Continuation US6782510B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 1998-01-27 | Word checking tool for controlling the language content in documents using dictionaries with modifyable status fields |
Related Child Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/919,877 Continuation US7424674B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2004-08-16 | Document distribution control system and method based on content |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20040107089A1 true US20040107089A1 (en) | 2004-06-03 |
Family
ID=32391926
Family Applications (4)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/014,414 Expired - Lifetime US6782510B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 1998-01-27 | Word checking tool for controlling the language content in documents using dictionaries with modifyable status fields |
US10/723,370 Abandoned US20040107089A1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2003-11-26 | Email text checker system and method |
US10/919,877 Expired - Fee Related US7424674B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2004-08-16 | Document distribution control system and method based on content |
US12/206,599 Expired - Lifetime US9665559B2 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2008-09-08 | Word checking tool for selectively filtering text documents for undesirable or inappropriate content as a function of target audience |
Family Applications Before (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/014,414 Expired - Lifetime US6782510B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 1998-01-27 | Word checking tool for controlling the language content in documents using dictionaries with modifyable status fields |
Family Applications After (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/919,877 Expired - Fee Related US7424674B1 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2004-08-16 | Document distribution control system and method based on content |
US12/206,599 Expired - Lifetime US9665559B2 (en) | 1998-01-27 | 2008-09-08 | Word checking tool for selectively filtering text documents for undesirable or inappropriate content as a function of target audience |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (4) | US6782510B1 (en) |
Cited By (26)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20050283726A1 (en) * | 2004-06-17 | 2005-12-22 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Routine and interface for correcting electronic text |
US20060253784A1 (en) * | 2001-05-03 | 2006-11-09 | Bower James M | Multi-tiered safety control system and methods for online communities |
US20070033008A1 (en) * | 2005-08-04 | 2007-02-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Apparatus, method and program for evaluating validity of dictionary |
US20070271509A1 (en) * | 2006-05-18 | 2007-11-22 | Abernethy Michael N | Methods and apparatuses for operations on selective document components |
US20080262841A1 (en) * | 2006-10-13 | 2008-10-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Apparatus and method for rendering contents, containing sound data, moving image data and static image data, harmless |
WO2009149453A1 (en) | 2008-06-06 | 2009-12-10 | Zi Corporation Of Canada, Inc. | Systems and methods for an automated personalized dictionary generator for portable devices |
US20100070263A1 (en) * | 2006-11-30 | 2010-03-18 | National Institute Of Advanced Industrial Science And Technology | Speech data retrieving web site system |
US7797152B1 (en) * | 2006-02-17 | 2010-09-14 | The United States Of America As Represented By The Director, National Security Agency | Method of database searching |
US20100280828A1 (en) * | 2009-04-30 | 2010-11-04 | Gene Fein | Communication Device Language Filter |
WO2011094533A1 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2011-08-04 | IndiePlaya, Inc. | Systems and methods for word offensiveness processing using aggregated offensive word filters |
WO2011094516A1 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2011-08-04 | IndiePlaya, Inc. | Systems and methods for word offensiveness detection and processing using weighted dictionaries and normalization |
US20110313756A1 (en) * | 2010-06-21 | 2011-12-22 | Connor Robert A | Text sizer (TM) |
US20120123778A1 (en) * | 2010-11-11 | 2012-05-17 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Security Control for SMS and MMS Support Using Unified Messaging System |
US20130061139A1 (en) * | 2011-09-01 | 2013-03-07 | Google Inc. | Server-based spell checking on a user device |
US20140229164A1 (en) * | 2011-02-23 | 2014-08-14 | New York University | Apparatus, method and computer-accessible medium for explaining classifications of documents |
US20150150028A1 (en) * | 2013-11-25 | 2015-05-28 | Microsoft Coporation | Compose application extension activation |
US20150309987A1 (en) * | 2014-04-29 | 2015-10-29 | Google Inc. | Classification of Offensive Words |
US20160034950A1 (en) * | 2014-08-01 | 2016-02-04 | Facebook, Inc. | Identifying Malicious Text In Advertisement Content |
US20160098386A1 (en) * | 2014-10-03 | 2016-04-07 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for unsupervised text normalization using distributed representation of words |
US20160294755A1 (en) * | 2014-06-14 | 2016-10-06 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US20180018308A1 (en) * | 2015-01-22 | 2018-01-18 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Text editing apparatus and text editing method based on speech signal |
WO2018236524A1 (en) * | 2017-06-22 | 2018-12-27 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | System and method for authoring electronic messages |
CN110852091A (en) * | 2019-11-11 | 2020-02-28 | 杭州安恒信息技术股份有限公司 | Method and device for monitoring wrongly written characters, electronic equipment and computer readable medium |
US11095585B2 (en) | 2014-06-14 | 2021-08-17 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US20220198143A1 (en) * | 2020-12-22 | 2022-06-23 | Yandex Europe Ag | Method and system for classifying word as obscene word |
CN117236328A (en) * | 2023-11-10 | 2023-12-15 | 深圳市泰铼科技有限公司 | Financial text intelligent checking system based on data analysis |
Families Citing this family (228)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7272604B1 (en) | 1999-09-03 | 2007-09-18 | Atle Hedloy | Method, system and computer readable medium for addressing handling from an operating system |
US8645137B2 (en) | 2000-03-16 | 2014-02-04 | Apple Inc. | Fast, language-independent method for user authentication by voice |
US7320019B2 (en) * | 2000-11-30 | 2008-01-15 | At&T Delaware Intellectual Property, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automatically checking e-mail addresses in outgoing e-mail communications |
US7254773B2 (en) * | 2000-12-29 | 2007-08-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automated spell analysis |
EP1237094A1 (en) * | 2001-01-22 | 2002-09-04 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | A method for determining rubies |
US20040205451A1 (en) * | 2001-08-13 | 2004-10-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for identifying and distinguishing words contained within an electronic message in order to convey significance |
US6961722B1 (en) | 2001-09-28 | 2005-11-01 | America Online, Inc. | Automated electronic dictionary |
JP2003122743A (en) * | 2001-10-12 | 2003-04-25 | Seiko Instruments Inc | Phrase display device, spell checker and electronic dictionary |
US7721337B2 (en) | 2001-10-26 | 2010-05-18 | Ibiquity Digital Corporation | System and method for providing a push of background data |
US20030083977A1 (en) * | 2001-10-26 | 2003-05-01 | Majid Syed | System and method for providing electronic bulk buying |
US20030093530A1 (en) * | 2001-10-26 | 2003-05-15 | Majid Syed | Arbitrator system and method for national and local content distribution |
US7155608B1 (en) * | 2001-12-05 | 2006-12-26 | Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corp. | Foreign network SPAM blocker |
US20050075880A1 (en) * | 2002-01-22 | 2005-04-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method, system, and product for automatically modifying a tone of a message |
JP4567275B2 (en) * | 2002-02-28 | 2010-10-20 | 株式会社エヌ・ティ・ティ・ドコモ | Mobile communication terminal, information processing apparatus, relay server apparatus, information processing system, and information processing method |
US20030189603A1 (en) * | 2002-04-09 | 2003-10-09 | Microsoft Corporation | Assignment and use of confidence levels for recognized text |
US6986106B2 (en) | 2002-05-13 | 2006-01-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Correction widget |
US20040205661A1 (en) * | 2002-05-23 | 2004-10-14 | Gallemore James David | System and method of reviewing and revising business documents |
US20030233427A1 (en) * | 2002-05-29 | 2003-12-18 | Hitachi, Ltd. | System and method for storage network management |
US20030233237A1 (en) * | 2002-06-17 | 2003-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Integration of speech and stylus input to provide an efficient natural input experience |
US20030237055A1 (en) * | 2002-06-20 | 2003-12-25 | Thomas Lange | Methods and systems for processing text elements |
US7137076B2 (en) | 2002-07-30 | 2006-11-14 | Microsoft Corporation | Correcting recognition results associated with user input |
US7185271B2 (en) * | 2002-08-20 | 2007-02-27 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Methods and systems for implementing auto-complete in a web page |
US7308648B1 (en) * | 2002-11-27 | 2007-12-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Method, system, and computer-readable medium for filtering harmful HTML in an electronic document |
US20040122846A1 (en) * | 2002-12-19 | 2004-06-24 | Ibm Corporation | Fact verification system |
US8428934B2 (en) * | 2010-01-25 | 2013-04-23 | Holovisions LLC | Prose style morphing |
US7624277B1 (en) * | 2003-02-25 | 2009-11-24 | Microsoft Corporation | Content alteration for prevention of unauthorized scripts |
US20040250208A1 (en) * | 2003-06-06 | 2004-12-09 | Nelms Robert Nathan | Enhanced spelling checking system and method therefore |
JP4502114B2 (en) * | 2003-06-24 | 2010-07-14 | セイコーインスツル株式会社 | Database search device |
US7155484B2 (en) | 2003-06-30 | 2006-12-26 | Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation | Filtering email messages corresponding to undesirable geographical regions |
US20050080642A1 (en) * | 2003-10-14 | 2005-04-14 | Daniell W. Todd | Consolidated email filtering user interface |
US7930351B2 (en) * | 2003-10-14 | 2011-04-19 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Identifying undesired email messages having attachments |
US7664812B2 (en) * | 2003-10-14 | 2010-02-16 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Phonetic filtering of undesired email messages |
US7451184B2 (en) * | 2003-10-14 | 2008-11-11 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Child protection from harmful email |
US7610341B2 (en) * | 2003-10-14 | 2009-10-27 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Filtered email differentiation |
US7848573B2 (en) * | 2003-12-03 | 2010-12-07 | Microsoft Corporation | Scaled text replacement of ink |
US7506271B2 (en) * | 2003-12-15 | 2009-03-17 | Microsoft Corporation | Multi-modal handwriting recognition correction |
US7779354B2 (en) * | 2004-05-13 | 2010-08-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and data processing system for recognizing and correcting dyslexia-related spelling errors |
US9356712B2 (en) * | 2004-05-14 | 2016-05-31 | Vibes Media Llc | Method and system for displaying data |
US7813917B2 (en) * | 2004-06-22 | 2010-10-12 | Gary Stephen Shuster | Candidate matching using algorithmic analysis of candidate-authored narrative information |
US7844464B2 (en) * | 2005-07-22 | 2010-11-30 | Multimodal Technologies, Inc. | Content-based audio playback emphasis |
US7711542B2 (en) * | 2004-08-31 | 2010-05-04 | Research In Motion Limited | System and method for multilanguage text input in a handheld electronic device |
US7627816B2 (en) * | 2005-04-12 | 2009-12-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for providing a transient dictionary that travels with an original electronic document |
US8677377B2 (en) | 2005-09-08 | 2014-03-18 | Apple Inc. | Method and apparatus for building an intelligent automated assistant |
US20070118759A1 (en) * | 2005-10-07 | 2007-05-24 | Sheppard Scott K | Undesirable email determination |
ES2420829T3 (en) | 2005-11-04 | 2013-08-27 | Novartis Vaccines And Diagnostics S.R.L. | Vaccines adjuvant with non-virion antigen prepared from influenza viruses grown in cell culture |
GB2437321A (en) * | 2006-04-20 | 2007-10-24 | Daniel Roberts | A networked method for the control and monitoring of internet messages by analysis using a smart algorithm and a designated dictionary. |
US8849653B2 (en) * | 2006-05-09 | 2014-09-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Updating dictionary during application installation |
EP1855210B1 (en) * | 2006-05-11 | 2018-01-03 | Dassault Systèmes | Spell checking |
US7739289B2 (en) * | 2006-05-15 | 2010-06-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Reviewing user-created content before website presentation |
WO2007150005A2 (en) * | 2006-06-22 | 2007-12-27 | Multimodal Technologies, Inc. | Automatic decision support |
WO2008025008A2 (en) * | 2006-08-24 | 2008-02-28 | Neustar, Inc. | System and method for filtering offensive information content in communication systems |
US9318108B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2016-04-19 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant |
US20080126481A1 (en) * | 2006-11-26 | 2008-05-29 | Al Chakra | Method and system for providing communication context specific formality control |
US7711191B2 (en) * | 2006-12-21 | 2010-05-04 | Michael John Kosek | Electronic transaction processing server with automated transaction evaluation |
US8201086B2 (en) * | 2007-01-18 | 2012-06-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Spellchecking electronic documents |
KR101155524B1 (en) * | 2007-03-07 | 2012-06-19 | 삼성전자주식회사 | Method and apparatus for changing text-based subtitle |
US8977255B2 (en) | 2007-04-03 | 2015-03-10 | Apple Inc. | Method and system for operating a multi-function portable electronic device using voice-activation |
GB0709574D0 (en) * | 2007-05-18 | 2007-06-27 | Aurix Ltd | Speech Screening |
US20090055731A1 (en) * | 2007-08-24 | 2009-02-26 | Joyce Etta Knowles | Homonym words dictionary |
US9910850B2 (en) * | 2007-10-25 | 2018-03-06 | Disney Enterprises, Inc. | System and method of localizing assets using text substitutions |
US8151200B2 (en) * | 2007-11-15 | 2012-04-03 | Target Brands, Inc. | Sensitive information handling on a collaboration system |
US9330720B2 (en) | 2008-01-03 | 2016-05-03 | Apple Inc. | Methods and apparatus for altering audio output signals |
US8996376B2 (en) | 2008-04-05 | 2015-03-31 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent text-to-speech conversion |
US8090669B2 (en) * | 2008-05-06 | 2012-01-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Adaptive learning framework for data correction |
US10496753B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2019-12-03 | Apple Inc. | Automatically adapting user interfaces for hands-free interaction |
JP4460011B2 (en) | 2008-05-27 | 2010-05-12 | 国立大学法人広島大学 | Moving image distribution system, moving image distribution method, server in moving image distribution system, and user terminal in moving image distribution system |
US8464150B2 (en) | 2008-06-07 | 2013-06-11 | Apple Inc. | Automatic language identification for dynamic text processing |
US20090319258A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2009-12-24 | Shaer Steven J | Method and system for spell checking in two or more languages |
US20100030549A1 (en) | 2008-07-31 | 2010-02-04 | Lee Michael M | Mobile device having human language translation capability with positional feedback |
CA2638558C (en) * | 2008-08-08 | 2013-03-05 | Bloorview Kids Rehab | Topic word generation method and system |
US9959870B2 (en) | 2008-12-11 | 2018-05-01 | Apple Inc. | Speech recognition involving a mobile device |
US8805996B1 (en) * | 2009-02-23 | 2014-08-12 | Symantec Corporation | Analysis of communications in social networks |
US8423353B2 (en) * | 2009-03-25 | 2013-04-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Sharable distributed dictionary for applications |
US8473443B2 (en) * | 2009-04-20 | 2013-06-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Inappropriate content detection method for senders |
US8447632B2 (en) * | 2009-05-29 | 2013-05-21 | Hyperquest, Inc. | Automation of auditing claims |
US8073718B2 (en) | 2009-05-29 | 2011-12-06 | Hyperquest, Inc. | Automation of auditing claims |
US8346577B2 (en) | 2009-05-29 | 2013-01-01 | Hyperquest, Inc. | Automation of auditing claims |
US8255205B2 (en) | 2009-05-29 | 2012-08-28 | Hyperquest, Inc. | Automation of auditing claims |
US10241752B2 (en) | 2011-09-30 | 2019-03-26 | Apple Inc. | Interface for a virtual digital assistant |
US10706373B2 (en) | 2011-06-03 | 2020-07-07 | Apple Inc. | Performing actions associated with task items that represent tasks to perform |
US9858925B2 (en) | 2009-06-05 | 2018-01-02 | Apple Inc. | Using context information to facilitate processing of commands in a virtual assistant |
US10241644B2 (en) | 2011-06-03 | 2019-03-26 | Apple Inc. | Actionable reminder entries |
US8446398B2 (en) | 2009-06-16 | 2013-05-21 | Intel Corporation | Power conservation for mobile device displays |
US8776177B2 (en) * | 2009-06-16 | 2014-07-08 | Intel Corporation | Dynamic content preference and behavior sharing between computing devices |
US8254957B2 (en) * | 2009-06-16 | 2012-08-28 | Intel Corporation | Context-based limitation of mobile device operation |
US9092069B2 (en) * | 2009-06-16 | 2015-07-28 | Intel Corporation | Customizable and predictive dictionary |
US20100318656A1 (en) * | 2009-06-16 | 2010-12-16 | Intel Corporation | Multiple-channel, short-range networking between wireless devices |
SG177156A1 (en) | 2009-06-16 | 2012-01-30 | Intel Corp | Camera applications in a handheld device |
US9431006B2 (en) | 2009-07-02 | 2016-08-30 | Apple Inc. | Methods and apparatuses for automatic speech recognition |
US20110191683A1 (en) * | 2009-12-04 | 2011-08-04 | Dillard Daniel G | Methods and Systems to Enhance Advisor-Client Communications |
US10276170B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2019-04-30 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant |
US10679605B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2020-06-09 | Apple Inc. | Hands-free list-reading by intelligent automated assistant |
US10705794B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2020-07-07 | Apple Inc. | Automatically adapting user interfaces for hands-free interaction |
US10553209B2 (en) | 2010-01-18 | 2020-02-04 | Apple Inc. | Systems and methods for hands-free notification summaries |
DE202011111062U1 (en) | 2010-01-25 | 2019-02-19 | Newvaluexchange Ltd. | Device and system for a digital conversation management platform |
JP5460359B2 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2014-04-02 | インターナショナル・ビジネス・マシーンズ・コーポレーション | Apparatus, method, and program for supporting processing of character string in document |
US8682667B2 (en) | 2010-02-25 | 2014-03-25 | Apple Inc. | User profiling for selecting user specific voice input processing information |
US10762293B2 (en) | 2010-12-22 | 2020-09-01 | Apple Inc. | Using parts-of-speech tagging and named entity recognition for spelling correction |
US9262612B2 (en) | 2011-03-21 | 2016-02-16 | Apple Inc. | Device access using voice authentication |
US10057736B2 (en) | 2011-06-03 | 2018-08-21 | Apple Inc. | Active transport based notifications |
US9015037B2 (en) | 2011-06-10 | 2015-04-21 | Linkedin Corporation | Interactive fact checking system |
US9176957B2 (en) | 2011-06-10 | 2015-11-03 | Linkedin Corporation | Selective fact checking method and system |
US9087048B2 (en) | 2011-06-10 | 2015-07-21 | Linkedin Corporation | Method of and system for validating a fact checking system |
US8185448B1 (en) | 2011-06-10 | 2012-05-22 | Myslinski Lucas J | Fact checking method and system |
US9164962B2 (en) * | 2011-06-20 | 2015-10-20 | Lexprompt, Llc | Document assembly systems and methods |
US20130006879A1 (en) * | 2011-06-28 | 2013-01-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Guiding Interactions Between Users of Social Networking Services Based on Business Relationships |
US8994660B2 (en) | 2011-08-29 | 2015-03-31 | Apple Inc. | Text correction processing |
US10134385B2 (en) | 2012-03-02 | 2018-11-20 | Apple Inc. | Systems and methods for name pronunciation |
US9483461B2 (en) | 2012-03-06 | 2016-11-01 | Apple Inc. | Handling speech synthesis of content for multiple languages |
US9280610B2 (en) | 2012-05-14 | 2016-03-08 | Apple Inc. | Crowd sourcing information to fulfill user requests |
US9721563B2 (en) | 2012-06-08 | 2017-08-01 | Apple Inc. | Name recognition system |
US9495129B2 (en) | 2012-06-29 | 2016-11-15 | Apple Inc. | Device, method, and user interface for voice-activated navigation and browsing of a document |
US9576574B2 (en) | 2012-09-10 | 2017-02-21 | Apple Inc. | Context-sensitive handling of interruptions by intelligent digital assistant |
US9547647B2 (en) | 2012-09-19 | 2017-01-17 | Apple Inc. | Voice-based media searching |
US9483159B2 (en) | 2012-12-12 | 2016-11-01 | Linkedin Corporation | Fact checking graphical user interface including fact checking icons |
JP2016508007A (en) | 2013-02-07 | 2016-03-10 | アップル インコーポレイテッド | Voice trigger for digital assistant |
US9368114B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2016-06-14 | Apple Inc. | Context-sensitive handling of interruptions |
WO2014144579A1 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2014-09-18 | Apple Inc. | System and method for updating an adaptive speech recognition model |
KR101759009B1 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2017-07-17 | 애플 인크. | Training an at least partial voice command system |
JPWO2014147923A1 (en) * | 2013-03-19 | 2017-02-16 | Necソリューションイノベータ株式会社 | Usability check result output method, apparatus and program |
US20140317495A1 (en) * | 2013-04-22 | 2014-10-23 | Research In Motion Limited | Retroactive word correction |
WO2014197334A2 (en) | 2013-06-07 | 2014-12-11 | Apple Inc. | System and method for user-specified pronunciation of words for speech synthesis and recognition |
US9582608B2 (en) | 2013-06-07 | 2017-02-28 | Apple Inc. | Unified ranking with entropy-weighted information for phrase-based semantic auto-completion |
WO2014197336A1 (en) | 2013-06-07 | 2014-12-11 | Apple Inc. | System and method for detecting errors in interactions with a voice-based digital assistant |
WO2014197335A1 (en) | 2013-06-08 | 2014-12-11 | Apple Inc. | Interpreting and acting upon commands that involve sharing information with remote devices |
US10176167B2 (en) | 2013-06-09 | 2019-01-08 | Apple Inc. | System and method for inferring user intent from speech inputs |
CN110442699A (en) | 2013-06-09 | 2019-11-12 | 苹果公司 | Operate method, computer-readable medium, electronic equipment and the system of digital assistants |
CN105265005B (en) | 2013-06-13 | 2019-09-17 | 苹果公司 | System and method for the urgent call initiated by voice command |
US10853572B2 (en) * | 2013-07-30 | 2020-12-01 | Oracle International Corporation | System and method for detecting the occureances of irrelevant and/or low-score strings in community based or user generated content |
JP6163266B2 (en) | 2013-08-06 | 2017-07-12 | アップル インコーポレイテッド | Automatic activation of smart responses based on activation from remote devices |
US20150095320A1 (en) | 2013-09-27 | 2015-04-02 | Trooclick France | Apparatus, systems and methods for scoring the reliability of online information |
US10169424B2 (en) | 2013-09-27 | 2019-01-01 | Lucas J. Myslinski | Apparatus, systems and methods for scoring and distributing the reliability of online information |
US10305831B2 (en) * | 2013-12-16 | 2019-05-28 | Fairwords, Inc. | Compliance mechanism for messaging |
US10120859B2 (en) * | 2013-12-16 | 2018-11-06 | Fairwords, Inc. | Message sentiment analyzer and message preclusion |
US11501068B2 (en) | 2013-12-16 | 2022-11-15 | Fairwords, Inc. | Message sentiment analyzer and feedback |
US10289678B2 (en) | 2013-12-16 | 2019-05-14 | Fairwords, Inc. | Semantic analyzer for training a policy engine |
US10063992B2 (en) * | 2014-01-23 | 2018-08-28 | Brian M. Dugan | Methods and apparatus for news delivery |
US9972055B2 (en) | 2014-02-28 | 2018-05-15 | Lucas J. Myslinski | Fact checking method and system utilizing social networking information |
US8990234B1 (en) | 2014-02-28 | 2015-03-24 | Lucas J. Myslinski | Efficient fact checking method and system |
US9643722B1 (en) | 2014-02-28 | 2017-05-09 | Lucas J. Myslinski | Drone device security system |
US9367537B2 (en) | 2014-04-01 | 2016-06-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Analyzing messages and/or documents to provide suggestions to modify messages and/or documents to be more suitable for intended recipients |
US9620105B2 (en) | 2014-05-15 | 2017-04-11 | Apple Inc. | Analyzing audio input for efficient speech and music recognition |
US10592095B2 (en) | 2014-05-23 | 2020-03-17 | Apple Inc. | Instantaneous speaking of content on touch devices |
US9502031B2 (en) | 2014-05-27 | 2016-11-22 | Apple Inc. | Method for supporting dynamic grammars in WFST-based ASR |
US10078631B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2018-09-18 | Apple Inc. | Entropy-guided text prediction using combined word and character n-gram language models |
US9842101B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-12-12 | Apple Inc. | Predictive conversion of language input |
US9734193B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-08-15 | Apple Inc. | Determining domain salience ranking from ambiguous words in natural speech |
US9760559B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-09-12 | Apple Inc. | Predictive text input |
US9633004B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-04-25 | Apple Inc. | Better resolution when referencing to concepts |
US9430463B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2016-08-30 | Apple Inc. | Exemplar-based natural language processing |
US10170123B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2019-01-01 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent assistant for home automation |
US10289433B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2019-05-14 | Apple Inc. | Domain specific language for encoding assistant dialog |
US9715875B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-07-25 | Apple Inc. | Reducing the need for manual start/end-pointing and trigger phrases |
US9785630B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2017-10-10 | Apple Inc. | Text prediction using combined word N-gram and unigram language models |
US9966065B2 (en) | 2014-05-30 | 2018-05-08 | Apple Inc. | Multi-command single utterance input method |
US10659851B2 (en) | 2014-06-30 | 2020-05-19 | Apple Inc. | Real-time digital assistant knowledge updates |
US9338493B2 (en) | 2014-06-30 | 2016-05-10 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant for TV user interactions |
US10446141B2 (en) | 2014-08-28 | 2019-10-15 | Apple Inc. | Automatic speech recognition based on user feedback |
FR3025107B1 (en) | 2014-08-29 | 2018-10-05 | Calixar | PROCESS FOR PREPARING A VACCINAL ANTIGEN, VACCINAL ANTIGEN OBTAINED AND USES |
US9189514B1 (en) | 2014-09-04 | 2015-11-17 | Lucas J. Myslinski | Optimized fact checking method and system |
US9818400B2 (en) | 2014-09-11 | 2017-11-14 | Apple Inc. | Method and apparatus for discovering trending terms in speech requests |
US10789041B2 (en) | 2014-09-12 | 2020-09-29 | Apple Inc. | Dynamic thresholds for always listening speech trigger |
US9646609B2 (en) | 2014-09-30 | 2017-05-09 | Apple Inc. | Caching apparatus for serving phonetic pronunciations |
US9668121B2 (en) | 2014-09-30 | 2017-05-30 | Apple Inc. | Social reminders |
US10127911B2 (en) | 2014-09-30 | 2018-11-13 | Apple Inc. | Speaker identification and unsupervised speaker adaptation techniques |
US9886432B2 (en) | 2014-09-30 | 2018-02-06 | Apple Inc. | Parsimonious handling of word inflection via categorical stem + suffix N-gram language models |
US10074360B2 (en) | 2014-09-30 | 2018-09-11 | Apple Inc. | Providing an indication of the suitability of speech recognition |
US10552013B2 (en) | 2014-12-02 | 2020-02-04 | Apple Inc. | Data detection |
US9711141B2 (en) | 2014-12-09 | 2017-07-18 | Apple Inc. | Disambiguating heteronyms in speech synthesis |
US9898511B2 (en) | 2015-01-22 | 2018-02-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method of manipulating vocabulary depending on the audience |
US10084867B1 (en) | 2015-02-10 | 2018-09-25 | Open Invention Network, Llc | Location awareness assistant for switching between a business profile mode and a personal profile mode |
US9865280B2 (en) | 2015-03-06 | 2018-01-09 | Apple Inc. | Structured dictation using intelligent automated assistants |
US9886953B2 (en) | 2015-03-08 | 2018-02-06 | Apple Inc. | Virtual assistant activation |
US10567477B2 (en) | 2015-03-08 | 2020-02-18 | Apple Inc. | Virtual assistant continuity |
US9721566B2 (en) | 2015-03-08 | 2017-08-01 | Apple Inc. | Competing devices responding to voice triggers |
US9899019B2 (en) | 2015-03-18 | 2018-02-20 | Apple Inc. | Systems and methods for structured stem and suffix language models |
US9842105B2 (en) | 2015-04-16 | 2017-12-12 | Apple Inc. | Parsimonious continuous-space phrase representations for natural language processing |
US10083688B2 (en) | 2015-05-27 | 2018-09-25 | Apple Inc. | Device voice control for selecting a displayed affordance |
US9953077B2 (en) | 2015-05-29 | 2018-04-24 | International Business Machines Corporation | Detecting overnegation in text |
US10127220B2 (en) | 2015-06-04 | 2018-11-13 | Apple Inc. | Language identification from short strings |
US9578173B2 (en) | 2015-06-05 | 2017-02-21 | Apple Inc. | Virtual assistant aided communication with 3rd party service in a communication session |
US10101822B2 (en) | 2015-06-05 | 2018-10-16 | Apple Inc. | Language input correction |
US10255907B2 (en) | 2015-06-07 | 2019-04-09 | Apple Inc. | Automatic accent detection using acoustic models |
US10186254B2 (en) | 2015-06-07 | 2019-01-22 | Apple Inc. | Context-based endpoint detection |
US11025565B2 (en) | 2015-06-07 | 2021-06-01 | Apple Inc. | Personalized prediction of responses for instant messaging |
US10460012B2 (en) | 2015-08-31 | 2019-10-29 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Enhanced document services |
US10747498B2 (en) | 2015-09-08 | 2020-08-18 | Apple Inc. | Zero latency digital assistant |
US10671428B2 (en) | 2015-09-08 | 2020-06-02 | Apple Inc. | Distributed personal assistant |
US9697820B2 (en) | 2015-09-24 | 2017-07-04 | Apple Inc. | Unit-selection text-to-speech synthesis using concatenation-sensitive neural networks |
US10366158B2 (en) | 2015-09-29 | 2019-07-30 | Apple Inc. | Efficient word encoding for recurrent neural network language models |
US11010550B2 (en) | 2015-09-29 | 2021-05-18 | Apple Inc. | Unified language modeling framework for word prediction, auto-completion and auto-correction |
US11587559B2 (en) | 2015-09-30 | 2023-02-21 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent device identification |
US10691473B2 (en) | 2015-11-06 | 2020-06-23 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant in a messaging environment |
US9720901B2 (en) * | 2015-11-19 | 2017-08-01 | King Abdulaziz City For Science And Technology | Automated text-evaluation of user generated text |
US9590941B1 (en) * | 2015-12-01 | 2017-03-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Message handling |
US10049668B2 (en) | 2015-12-02 | 2018-08-14 | Apple Inc. | Applying neural network language models to weighted finite state transducers for automatic speech recognition |
US10223066B2 (en) | 2015-12-23 | 2019-03-05 | Apple Inc. | Proactive assistance based on dialog communication between devices |
US11727198B2 (en) | 2016-02-01 | 2023-08-15 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Enterprise writing assistance |
US10446143B2 (en) | 2016-03-14 | 2019-10-15 | Apple Inc. | Identification of voice inputs providing credentials |
US10489506B2 (en) | 2016-05-20 | 2019-11-26 | Blackberry Limited | Message correction and updating system and method, and associated user interface operation |
US9934775B2 (en) | 2016-05-26 | 2018-04-03 | Apple Inc. | Unit-selection text-to-speech synthesis based on predicted concatenation parameters |
US9972304B2 (en) | 2016-06-03 | 2018-05-15 | Apple Inc. | Privacy preserving distributed evaluation framework for embedded personalized systems |
US10249300B2 (en) | 2016-06-06 | 2019-04-02 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent list reading |
US10049663B2 (en) | 2016-06-08 | 2018-08-14 | Apple, Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant for media exploration |
DK179309B1 (en) | 2016-06-09 | 2018-04-23 | Apple Inc | Intelligent automated assistant in a home environment |
US10192552B2 (en) | 2016-06-10 | 2019-01-29 | Apple Inc. | Digital assistant providing whispered speech |
US10586535B2 (en) | 2016-06-10 | 2020-03-10 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent digital assistant in a multi-tasking environment |
US10509862B2 (en) | 2016-06-10 | 2019-12-17 | Apple Inc. | Dynamic phrase expansion of language input |
US10067938B2 (en) | 2016-06-10 | 2018-09-04 | Apple Inc. | Multilingual word prediction |
US10490187B2 (en) | 2016-06-10 | 2019-11-26 | Apple Inc. | Digital assistant providing automated status report |
DK179415B1 (en) | 2016-06-11 | 2018-06-14 | Apple Inc | Intelligent device arbitration and control |
DK179343B1 (en) | 2016-06-11 | 2018-05-14 | Apple Inc | Intelligent task discovery |
DK179049B1 (en) | 2016-06-11 | 2017-09-18 | Apple Inc | Data driven natural language event detection and classification |
DK201670540A1 (en) | 2016-06-11 | 2018-01-08 | Apple Inc | Application integration with a digital assistant |
US10452414B2 (en) * | 2016-06-30 | 2019-10-22 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Assistive technology notifications for relevant metadata changes in a document |
US9858257B1 (en) * | 2016-07-20 | 2018-01-02 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Distinguishing intentional linguistic deviations from unintentional linguistic deviations |
US20180032499A1 (en) * | 2016-07-28 | 2018-02-01 | Google Inc. | Automatically Generating Spelling Suggestions and Corrections Based on User Context |
US10043516B2 (en) | 2016-09-23 | 2018-08-07 | Apple Inc. | Intelligent automated assistant |
US10593346B2 (en) | 2016-12-22 | 2020-03-17 | Apple Inc. | Rank-reduced token representation for automatic speech recognition |
DK201770439A1 (en) | 2017-05-11 | 2018-12-13 | Apple Inc. | Offline personal assistant |
DK179496B1 (en) | 2017-05-12 | 2019-01-15 | Apple Inc. | USER-SPECIFIC Acoustic Models |
DK179745B1 (en) | 2017-05-12 | 2019-05-01 | Apple Inc. | SYNCHRONIZATION AND TASK DELEGATION OF A DIGITAL ASSISTANT |
DK201770431A1 (en) | 2017-05-15 | 2018-12-20 | Apple Inc. | Optimizing dialogue policy decisions for digital assistants using implicit feedback |
DK201770432A1 (en) | 2017-05-15 | 2018-12-21 | Apple Inc. | Hierarchical belief states for digital assistants |
DK179549B1 (en) | 2017-05-16 | 2019-02-12 | Apple Inc. | Far-field extension for digital assistant services |
US10803247B2 (en) * | 2017-12-12 | 2020-10-13 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Intelligent content detection |
US11625630B2 (en) | 2018-01-26 | 2023-04-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Identifying intent in dialog data through variant assessment |
US11115440B2 (en) | 2019-05-08 | 2021-09-07 | Bank Of America Corporation | Dynamic threat intelligence detection and control system |
Citations (76)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4456973A (en) * | 1982-04-30 | 1984-06-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic text grade level analyzer for a text processing system |
US4674065A (en) * | 1982-04-30 | 1987-06-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for detecting and correcting contextual errors in a text processing system |
US4773039A (en) * | 1985-11-19 | 1988-09-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Information processing system for compaction and replacement of phrases |
US4818131A (en) * | 1985-12-29 | 1989-04-04 | Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha | Typewriter having means for automatic indication of candidate correct word for misspelled word, and/or automatic correction of misspelled word |
US4829472A (en) * | 1986-10-20 | 1989-05-09 | Microlytics, Inc. | Spelling check module |
US4903206A (en) * | 1987-02-05 | 1990-02-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Spelling error correcting system |
US5258909A (en) * | 1989-08-31 | 1993-11-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for "wrong word" spelling error detection and correction |
US5280573A (en) * | 1989-03-14 | 1994-01-18 | Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha | Document processing support system using keywords to retrieve explanatory information linked together by correlative arcs |
US5305205A (en) * | 1990-10-23 | 1994-04-19 | Weber Maria L | Computer-assisted transcription apparatus |
US5349648A (en) * | 1990-12-13 | 1994-09-20 | Handley George E | Automatic high speed publishing system |
US5367453A (en) * | 1993-08-02 | 1994-11-22 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Method and apparatus for correcting words |
US5377354A (en) * | 1989-08-15 | 1994-12-27 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method and system for sorting and prioritizing electronic mail messages |
US5418718A (en) * | 1993-06-07 | 1995-05-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for providing linguistic functions of English text in a mixed document of single-byte characters and double-byte characters |
US5428778A (en) * | 1992-02-13 | 1995-06-27 | Office Express Pty. Ltd. | Selective dissemination of information |
US5437036A (en) * | 1992-09-03 | 1995-07-25 | Microsoft Corporation | Text checking application programming interface |
US5541836A (en) * | 1991-12-30 | 1996-07-30 | At&T Corp. | Word disambiguation apparatus and methods |
US5576955A (en) * | 1993-04-08 | 1996-11-19 | Oracle Corporation | Method and apparatus for proofreading in a computer system |
US5576755A (en) * | 1994-10-28 | 1996-11-19 | Davis; Bruce | System and method for verification of electronic television program guide data |
US5594642A (en) * | 1993-12-22 | 1997-01-14 | Object Technology Licensing Corp. | Input methods framework |
US5604897A (en) * | 1990-05-18 | 1997-02-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for correcting the spelling of misspelled words |
US5619648A (en) * | 1994-11-30 | 1997-04-08 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Message filtering techniques |
US5623600A (en) * | 1995-09-26 | 1997-04-22 | Trend Micro, Incorporated | Virus detection and removal apparatus for computer networks |
US5649222A (en) * | 1995-05-08 | 1997-07-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Method for background spell checking a word processing document |
US5678053A (en) * | 1994-09-29 | 1997-10-14 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technology Center America, Inc. | Grammar checker interface |
US5678041A (en) * | 1995-06-06 | 1997-10-14 | At&T | System and method for restricting user access rights on the internet based on rating information stored in a relational database |
US5696898A (en) * | 1995-06-06 | 1997-12-09 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | System and method for database access control |
US5706507A (en) * | 1995-07-05 | 1998-01-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for controlling access to data located on a content server |
US5708822A (en) * | 1995-05-31 | 1998-01-13 | Oracle Corporation | Methods and apparatus for thematic parsing of discourse |
US5715468A (en) * | 1994-09-30 | 1998-02-03 | Budzinski; Robert Lucius | Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language |
US5715469A (en) * | 1993-07-12 | 1998-02-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for detecting error strings in a text |
US5751335A (en) * | 1995-03-10 | 1998-05-12 | Sony Corporation | Viewing restricting method and viewing restricting apparatus |
US5754939A (en) * | 1994-11-29 | 1998-05-19 | Herz; Frederick S. M. | System for generation of user profiles for a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects |
US5757417A (en) * | 1995-12-06 | 1998-05-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for screening audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber |
US5761689A (en) * | 1994-09-01 | 1998-06-02 | Microsoft Corporation | Autocorrecting text typed into a word processing document |
US5796948A (en) * | 1996-11-12 | 1998-08-18 | Cohen; Elliot D. | Offensive message interceptor for computers |
US5796942A (en) * | 1996-11-21 | 1998-08-18 | Computer Associates International, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automated network-wide surveillance and security breach intervention |
US5812863A (en) * | 1993-09-24 | 1998-09-22 | Matsushita Electric Ind. | Apparatus for correcting misspelling and incorrect usage of word |
US5822527A (en) * | 1990-05-04 | 1998-10-13 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method and apparatus for information stream filtration using tagged information access and action registration |
US5832212A (en) * | 1996-04-19 | 1998-11-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Censoring browser method and apparatus for internet viewing |
US5835722A (en) * | 1996-06-27 | 1998-11-10 | Logon Data Corporation | System to control content and prohibit certain interactive attempts by a person using a personal computer |
US5848418A (en) * | 1997-02-19 | 1998-12-08 | Watchsoft, Inc. | Electronic file analyzer and selector |
US5867811A (en) * | 1993-06-18 | 1999-02-02 | Canon Research Centre Europe Ltd. | Method, an apparatus, a system, a storage device, and a computer readable medium using a bilingual database including aligned corpora |
US5873056A (en) * | 1993-10-12 | 1999-02-16 | The Syracuse University | Natural language processing system for semantic vector representation which accounts for lexical ambiguity |
US5875443A (en) * | 1996-01-30 | 1999-02-23 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Internet-based spelling checker dictionary system with automatic updating |
US5884033A (en) * | 1996-05-15 | 1999-03-16 | Spyglass, Inc. | Internet filtering system for filtering data transferred over the internet utilizing immediate and deferred filtering actions |
US5889943A (en) * | 1995-09-26 | 1999-03-30 | Trend Micro Incorporated | Apparatus and method for electronic mail virus detection and elimination |
US5890182A (en) * | 1995-02-28 | 1999-03-30 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | Sentence processing method and apparatus |
US5903867A (en) * | 1993-11-30 | 1999-05-11 | Sony Corporation | Information access system and recording system |
US5907839A (en) * | 1996-07-03 | 1999-05-25 | Yeda Reseach And Development, Co., Ltd. | Algorithm for context sensitive spelling correction |
US5911043A (en) * | 1996-10-01 | 1999-06-08 | Baker & Botts, L.L.P. | System and method for computer-based rating of information retrieved from a computer network |
US5933531A (en) * | 1996-08-23 | 1999-08-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Verification and correction method and system for optical character recognition |
US5956739A (en) * | 1996-06-25 | 1999-09-21 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technology Center America, Inc. | System for text correction adaptive to the text being corrected |
US5960080A (en) * | 1997-11-07 | 1999-09-28 | Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center | Method for transforming message containing sensitive information |
US5973683A (en) * | 1997-11-24 | 1999-10-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Dynamic regulation of television viewing content based on viewer profile and viewing history |
US5996011A (en) * | 1997-03-25 | 1999-11-30 | Unified Research Laboratories, Inc. | System and method for filtering data received by a computer system |
US5999896A (en) * | 1996-06-25 | 1999-12-07 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for identifying and resolving commonly confused words in a natural language parser |
US5999932A (en) * | 1998-01-13 | 1999-12-07 | Bright Light Technologies, Inc. | System and method for filtering unsolicited electronic mail messages using data matching and heuristic processing |
US6002997A (en) * | 1996-06-21 | 1999-12-14 | Tou; Julius T. | Method for translating cultural subtleties in machine translation |
US6012075A (en) * | 1996-11-14 | 2000-01-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for background grammar checking an electronic document |
US6023723A (en) * | 1997-12-22 | 2000-02-08 | Accepted Marketing, Inc. | Method and system for filtering unwanted junk e-mail utilizing a plurality of filtering mechanisms |
US6047299A (en) * | 1996-03-27 | 2000-04-04 | Hitachi Business International, Ltd. | Document composition supporting method and system, and electronic dictionary for terminology |
US6052709A (en) * | 1997-12-23 | 2000-04-18 | Bright Light Technologies, Inc. | Apparatus and method for controlling delivery of unsolicited electronic mail |
US6072942A (en) * | 1996-09-18 | 2000-06-06 | Secure Computing Corporation | System and method of electronic mail filtering using interconnected nodes |
US6073142A (en) * | 1997-06-23 | 2000-06-06 | Park City Group | Automated post office based rule analysis of e-mail messages and other data objects for controlled distribution in network environments |
US6075550A (en) * | 1997-12-23 | 2000-06-13 | Lapierre; Diane | Censoring assembly adapted for use with closed caption television |
US6078733A (en) * | 1996-03-08 | 2000-06-20 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technolgy Center America, Inc. (Ita) | Network interface having support for message processing and an interface to a message coprocessor |
US6085206A (en) * | 1996-06-20 | 2000-07-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for verifying accuracy of spelling and grammatical composition of a document |
US6092101A (en) * | 1997-06-16 | 2000-07-18 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method for filtering mail messages for a plurality of client computers connected to a mail service system |
US6126306A (en) * | 1991-09-11 | 2000-10-03 | Ando; Shimon | Natural language processing method for converting a first natural language into a second natural language using data structures |
US6146026A (en) * | 1996-12-27 | 2000-11-14 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | System and apparatus for selectively publishing electronic-mail |
US6151598A (en) * | 1995-08-14 | 2000-11-21 | Shaw; Venson M. | Digital dictionary with a communication system for the creating, updating, editing, storing, maintaining, referencing, and managing the digital dictionary |
US6154757A (en) * | 1997-01-29 | 2000-11-28 | Krause; Philip R. | Electronic text reading environment enhancement method and apparatus |
US6166780A (en) * | 1997-10-21 | 2000-12-26 | Principle Solutions, Inc. | Automated language filter |
US6199102B1 (en) * | 1997-08-26 | 2001-03-06 | Christopher Alan Cobb | Method and system for filtering electronic messages |
US6266664B1 (en) * | 1997-10-01 | 2001-07-24 | Rulespace, Inc. | Method for scanning, analyzing and rating digital information content |
US6609196B1 (en) * | 1997-07-24 | 2003-08-19 | Tumbleweed Communications Corp. | E-mail firewall with stored key encryption/decryption |
Family Cites Families (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JPH05334342A (en) | 1990-07-13 | 1993-12-17 | Artificial Linguistics Inc | Device and method for analyzing write |
JPH06119325A (en) | 1992-10-01 | 1994-04-28 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Word correcting device |
JPH06149879A (en) | 1992-11-04 | 1994-05-31 | Atsuko Kuroda | Spelling check function for computer to find out and correct english word with spelling different from intention by user |
JPH0721184A (en) | 1993-06-17 | 1995-01-24 | Sumitomo Metal Ind Ltd | Dictionary device for proofreading assistance |
JP2870375B2 (en) | 1993-09-28 | 1999-03-17 | 日本電気株式会社 | Sentence correction device |
JPH07282047A (en) | 1994-04-01 | 1995-10-27 | Ryosuke Tsukioka | Misreading, misuse, slang reading kana-kanji conversion device |
JPH1011438A (en) | 1996-06-27 | 1998-01-16 | Canon Inc | Word checker |
-
1998
- 1998-01-27 US US09/014,414 patent/US6782510B1/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
-
2003
- 2003-11-26 US US10/723,370 patent/US20040107089A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2004
- 2004-08-16 US US10/919,877 patent/US7424674B1/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
2008
- 2008-09-08 US US12/206,599 patent/US9665559B2/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
Patent Citations (77)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4674065A (en) * | 1982-04-30 | 1987-06-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for detecting and correcting contextual errors in a text processing system |
US4456973A (en) * | 1982-04-30 | 1984-06-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic text grade level analyzer for a text processing system |
US4773039A (en) * | 1985-11-19 | 1988-09-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Information processing system for compaction and replacement of phrases |
US4818131A (en) * | 1985-12-29 | 1989-04-04 | Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha | Typewriter having means for automatic indication of candidate correct word for misspelled word, and/or automatic correction of misspelled word |
US4829472A (en) * | 1986-10-20 | 1989-05-09 | Microlytics, Inc. | Spelling check module |
US4903206A (en) * | 1987-02-05 | 1990-02-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Spelling error correcting system |
US5280573A (en) * | 1989-03-14 | 1994-01-18 | Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha | Document processing support system using keywords to retrieve explanatory information linked together by correlative arcs |
US5377354A (en) * | 1989-08-15 | 1994-12-27 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method and system for sorting and prioritizing electronic mail messages |
US5258909A (en) * | 1989-08-31 | 1993-11-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for "wrong word" spelling error detection and correction |
US5822527A (en) * | 1990-05-04 | 1998-10-13 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method and apparatus for information stream filtration using tagged information access and action registration |
US5604897A (en) * | 1990-05-18 | 1997-02-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for correcting the spelling of misspelled words |
US5305205A (en) * | 1990-10-23 | 1994-04-19 | Weber Maria L | Computer-assisted transcription apparatus |
US5349648A (en) * | 1990-12-13 | 1994-09-20 | Handley George E | Automatic high speed publishing system |
US6126306A (en) * | 1991-09-11 | 2000-10-03 | Ando; Shimon | Natural language processing method for converting a first natural language into a second natural language using data structures |
US5541836A (en) * | 1991-12-30 | 1996-07-30 | At&T Corp. | Word disambiguation apparatus and methods |
US5428778A (en) * | 1992-02-13 | 1995-06-27 | Office Express Pty. Ltd. | Selective dissemination of information |
US5437036A (en) * | 1992-09-03 | 1995-07-25 | Microsoft Corporation | Text checking application programming interface |
US5576955A (en) * | 1993-04-08 | 1996-11-19 | Oracle Corporation | Method and apparatus for proofreading in a computer system |
US5418718A (en) * | 1993-06-07 | 1995-05-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for providing linguistic functions of English text in a mixed document of single-byte characters and double-byte characters |
US5867811A (en) * | 1993-06-18 | 1999-02-02 | Canon Research Centre Europe Ltd. | Method, an apparatus, a system, a storage device, and a computer readable medium using a bilingual database including aligned corpora |
US5715469A (en) * | 1993-07-12 | 1998-02-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for detecting error strings in a text |
US5367453A (en) * | 1993-08-02 | 1994-11-22 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Method and apparatus for correcting words |
US5812863A (en) * | 1993-09-24 | 1998-09-22 | Matsushita Electric Ind. | Apparatus for correcting misspelling and incorrect usage of word |
US5873056A (en) * | 1993-10-12 | 1999-02-16 | The Syracuse University | Natural language processing system for semantic vector representation which accounts for lexical ambiguity |
US5903867A (en) * | 1993-11-30 | 1999-05-11 | Sony Corporation | Information access system and recording system |
US5594642A (en) * | 1993-12-22 | 1997-01-14 | Object Technology Licensing Corp. | Input methods framework |
US5761689A (en) * | 1994-09-01 | 1998-06-02 | Microsoft Corporation | Autocorrecting text typed into a word processing document |
US5678053A (en) * | 1994-09-29 | 1997-10-14 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technology Center America, Inc. | Grammar checker interface |
US5715468A (en) * | 1994-09-30 | 1998-02-03 | Budzinski; Robert Lucius | Memory system for storing and retrieving experience and knowledge with natural language |
US5576755A (en) * | 1994-10-28 | 1996-11-19 | Davis; Bruce | System and method for verification of electronic television program guide data |
US5754939A (en) * | 1994-11-29 | 1998-05-19 | Herz; Frederick S. M. | System for generation of user profiles for a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects |
US5619648A (en) * | 1994-11-30 | 1997-04-08 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Message filtering techniques |
US5890182A (en) * | 1995-02-28 | 1999-03-30 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | Sentence processing method and apparatus |
US5751335A (en) * | 1995-03-10 | 1998-05-12 | Sony Corporation | Viewing restricting method and viewing restricting apparatus |
US5649222A (en) * | 1995-05-08 | 1997-07-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Method for background spell checking a word processing document |
US5708822A (en) * | 1995-05-31 | 1998-01-13 | Oracle Corporation | Methods and apparatus for thematic parsing of discourse |
US5696898A (en) * | 1995-06-06 | 1997-12-09 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | System and method for database access control |
US5678041A (en) * | 1995-06-06 | 1997-10-14 | At&T | System and method for restricting user access rights on the internet based on rating information stored in a relational database |
US5706507A (en) * | 1995-07-05 | 1998-01-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for controlling access to data located on a content server |
US6151598A (en) * | 1995-08-14 | 2000-11-21 | Shaw; Venson M. | Digital dictionary with a communication system for the creating, updating, editing, storing, maintaining, referencing, and managing the digital dictionary |
US5623600A (en) * | 1995-09-26 | 1997-04-22 | Trend Micro, Incorporated | Virus detection and removal apparatus for computer networks |
US5889943A (en) * | 1995-09-26 | 1999-03-30 | Trend Micro Incorporated | Apparatus and method for electronic mail virus detection and elimination |
US5757417A (en) * | 1995-12-06 | 1998-05-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for screening audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber |
US5875443A (en) * | 1996-01-30 | 1999-02-23 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Internet-based spelling checker dictionary system with automatic updating |
US6078733A (en) * | 1996-03-08 | 2000-06-20 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technolgy Center America, Inc. (Ita) | Network interface having support for message processing and an interface to a message coprocessor |
US6047299A (en) * | 1996-03-27 | 2000-04-04 | Hitachi Business International, Ltd. | Document composition supporting method and system, and electronic dictionary for terminology |
US5832212A (en) * | 1996-04-19 | 1998-11-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Censoring browser method and apparatus for internet viewing |
US5884033A (en) * | 1996-05-15 | 1999-03-16 | Spyglass, Inc. | Internet filtering system for filtering data transferred over the internet utilizing immediate and deferred filtering actions |
US6085206A (en) * | 1996-06-20 | 2000-07-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for verifying accuracy of spelling and grammatical composition of a document |
US6002997A (en) * | 1996-06-21 | 1999-12-14 | Tou; Julius T. | Method for translating cultural subtleties in machine translation |
US5999896A (en) * | 1996-06-25 | 1999-12-07 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for identifying and resolving commonly confused words in a natural language parser |
US5956739A (en) * | 1996-06-25 | 1999-09-21 | Mitsubishi Electric Information Technology Center America, Inc. | System for text correction adaptive to the text being corrected |
US5835722A (en) * | 1996-06-27 | 1998-11-10 | Logon Data Corporation | System to control content and prohibit certain interactive attempts by a person using a personal computer |
US5907839A (en) * | 1996-07-03 | 1999-05-25 | Yeda Reseach And Development, Co., Ltd. | Algorithm for context sensitive spelling correction |
US5933531A (en) * | 1996-08-23 | 1999-08-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Verification and correction method and system for optical character recognition |
US6072942A (en) * | 1996-09-18 | 2000-06-06 | Secure Computing Corporation | System and method of electronic mail filtering using interconnected nodes |
US5911043A (en) * | 1996-10-01 | 1999-06-08 | Baker & Botts, L.L.P. | System and method for computer-based rating of information retrieved from a computer network |
US5796948A (en) * | 1996-11-12 | 1998-08-18 | Cohen; Elliot D. | Offensive message interceptor for computers |
US6012075A (en) * | 1996-11-14 | 2000-01-04 | Microsoft Corporation | Method and system for background grammar checking an electronic document |
US5796942A (en) * | 1996-11-21 | 1998-08-18 | Computer Associates International, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automated network-wide surveillance and security breach intervention |
US6146026A (en) * | 1996-12-27 | 2000-11-14 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | System and apparatus for selectively publishing electronic-mail |
US6154757A (en) * | 1997-01-29 | 2000-11-28 | Krause; Philip R. | Electronic text reading environment enhancement method and apparatus |
US5848418A (en) * | 1997-02-19 | 1998-12-08 | Watchsoft, Inc. | Electronic file analyzer and selector |
US5996011A (en) * | 1997-03-25 | 1999-11-30 | Unified Research Laboratories, Inc. | System and method for filtering data received by a computer system |
US6092101A (en) * | 1997-06-16 | 2000-07-18 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method for filtering mail messages for a plurality of client computers connected to a mail service system |
US6073142A (en) * | 1997-06-23 | 2000-06-06 | Park City Group | Automated post office based rule analysis of e-mail messages and other data objects for controlled distribution in network environments |
US6609196B1 (en) * | 1997-07-24 | 2003-08-19 | Tumbleweed Communications Corp. | E-mail firewall with stored key encryption/decryption |
US6199102B1 (en) * | 1997-08-26 | 2001-03-06 | Christopher Alan Cobb | Method and system for filtering electronic messages |
US6266664B1 (en) * | 1997-10-01 | 2001-07-24 | Rulespace, Inc. | Method for scanning, analyzing and rating digital information content |
US6675162B1 (en) * | 1997-10-01 | 2004-01-06 | Microsoft Corporation | Method for scanning, analyzing and handling various kinds of digital information content |
US6166780A (en) * | 1997-10-21 | 2000-12-26 | Principle Solutions, Inc. | Automated language filter |
US5960080A (en) * | 1997-11-07 | 1999-09-28 | Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center | Method for transforming message containing sensitive information |
US5973683A (en) * | 1997-11-24 | 1999-10-26 | International Business Machines Corporation | Dynamic regulation of television viewing content based on viewer profile and viewing history |
US6023723A (en) * | 1997-12-22 | 2000-02-08 | Accepted Marketing, Inc. | Method and system for filtering unwanted junk e-mail utilizing a plurality of filtering mechanisms |
US6075550A (en) * | 1997-12-23 | 2000-06-13 | Lapierre; Diane | Censoring assembly adapted for use with closed caption television |
US6052709A (en) * | 1997-12-23 | 2000-04-18 | Bright Light Technologies, Inc. | Apparatus and method for controlling delivery of unsolicited electronic mail |
US5999932A (en) * | 1998-01-13 | 1999-12-07 | Bright Light Technologies, Inc. | System and method for filtering unsolicited electronic mail messages using data matching and heuristic processing |
Cited By (48)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20060253784A1 (en) * | 2001-05-03 | 2006-11-09 | Bower James M | Multi-tiered safety control system and methods for online communities |
US20050283726A1 (en) * | 2004-06-17 | 2005-12-22 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Routine and interface for correcting electronic text |
US8321786B2 (en) * | 2004-06-17 | 2012-11-27 | Apple Inc. | Routine and interface for correcting electronic text |
US20070033008A1 (en) * | 2005-08-04 | 2007-02-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Apparatus, method and program for evaluating validity of dictionary |
US7797152B1 (en) * | 2006-02-17 | 2010-09-14 | The United States Of America As Represented By The Director, National Security Agency | Method of database searching |
US7996768B2 (en) * | 2006-05-18 | 2011-08-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Operations on document components filtered via text attributes |
US20070271509A1 (en) * | 2006-05-18 | 2007-11-22 | Abernethy Michael N | Methods and apparatuses for operations on selective document components |
US20080262841A1 (en) * | 2006-10-13 | 2008-10-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Apparatus and method for rendering contents, containing sound data, moving image data and static image data, harmless |
US20100070263A1 (en) * | 2006-11-30 | 2010-03-18 | National Institute Of Advanced Industrial Science And Technology | Speech data retrieving web site system |
WO2009149453A1 (en) | 2008-06-06 | 2009-12-10 | Zi Corporation Of Canada, Inc. | Systems and methods for an automated personalized dictionary generator for portable devices |
EP2286350B1 (en) * | 2008-06-06 | 2018-05-23 | ZI Corporation of Canada, Inc. | Systems and methods for an automated personalized dictionary generator for portable devices |
US20100280828A1 (en) * | 2009-04-30 | 2010-11-04 | Gene Fein | Communication Device Language Filter |
US10534827B2 (en) | 2010-01-29 | 2020-01-14 | Ipar, Llc | Systems and methods for word offensiveness detection and processing using weighted dictionaries and normalization |
US9703872B2 (en) | 2010-01-29 | 2017-07-11 | Ipar, Llc | Systems and methods for word offensiveness detection and processing using weighted dictionaries and normalization |
WO2011094533A1 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2011-08-04 | IndiePlaya, Inc. | Systems and methods for word offensiveness processing using aggregated offensive word filters |
US8296130B2 (en) | 2010-01-29 | 2012-10-23 | Ipar, Llc | Systems and methods for word offensiveness detection and processing using weighted dictionaries and normalization |
US20110191105A1 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2011-08-04 | Spears Joseph L | Systems and Methods for Word Offensiveness Detection and Processing Using Weighted Dictionaries and Normalization |
WO2011094516A1 (en) * | 2010-01-29 | 2011-08-04 | IndiePlaya, Inc. | Systems and methods for word offensiveness detection and processing using weighted dictionaries and normalization |
US8510098B2 (en) | 2010-01-29 | 2013-08-13 | Ipar, Llc | Systems and methods for word offensiveness processing using aggregated offensive word filters |
US8868408B2 (en) | 2010-01-29 | 2014-10-21 | Ipar, Llc | Systems and methods for word offensiveness processing using aggregated offensive word filters |
US20110313756A1 (en) * | 2010-06-21 | 2011-12-22 | Connor Robert A | Text sizer (TM) |
US20120123778A1 (en) * | 2010-11-11 | 2012-05-17 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Security Control for SMS and MMS Support Using Unified Messaging System |
US20140229164A1 (en) * | 2011-02-23 | 2014-08-14 | New York University | Apparatus, method and computer-accessible medium for explaining classifications of documents |
US9836455B2 (en) * | 2011-02-23 | 2017-12-05 | New York University | Apparatus, method and computer-accessible medium for explaining classifications of documents |
US20130061139A1 (en) * | 2011-09-01 | 2013-03-07 | Google Inc. | Server-based spell checking on a user device |
US10430254B2 (en) | 2013-11-25 | 2019-10-01 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Compose application extension activation |
US20150150028A1 (en) * | 2013-11-25 | 2015-05-28 | Microsoft Coporation | Compose application extension activation |
US9672079B2 (en) * | 2013-11-25 | 2017-06-06 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Compose application extension activation |
US11080104B2 (en) * | 2013-11-25 | 2021-08-03 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Compose application extension activation |
US20150309987A1 (en) * | 2014-04-29 | 2015-10-29 | Google Inc. | Classification of Offensive Words |
US10635750B1 (en) * | 2014-04-29 | 2020-04-28 | Google Llc | Classification of offensive words |
US20160294755A1 (en) * | 2014-06-14 | 2016-10-06 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US11706176B2 (en) * | 2014-06-14 | 2023-07-18 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US10250538B2 (en) * | 2014-06-14 | 2019-04-02 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US11095585B2 (en) | 2014-06-14 | 2021-08-17 | Trisha N. Prabhu | Detecting messages with offensive content |
US10445770B2 (en) * | 2014-08-01 | 2019-10-15 | Facebook, Inc. | Identifying malicious text in advertisement content |
US20160034950A1 (en) * | 2014-08-01 | 2016-02-04 | Facebook, Inc. | Identifying Malicious Text In Advertisement Content |
US10083167B2 (en) * | 2014-10-03 | 2018-09-25 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for unsupervised text normalization using distributed representation of words |
US20160098386A1 (en) * | 2014-10-03 | 2016-04-07 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for unsupervised text normalization using distributed representation of words |
US11501066B2 (en) * | 2014-10-03 | 2022-11-15 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for unsupervised text normalization using distributed representation of words |
US10671807B2 (en) | 2014-10-03 | 2020-06-02 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and method for unsupervised text normalization using distributed representation of words |
US20200293713A1 (en) * | 2014-10-03 | 2020-09-17 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | System and Method for Unsupervised Text Normalization Using Distributed Representation of Words |
US20180018308A1 (en) * | 2015-01-22 | 2018-01-18 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Text editing apparatus and text editing method based on speech signal |
US10922490B2 (en) | 2017-06-22 | 2021-02-16 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | System and method for authoring electronic messages |
WO2018236524A1 (en) * | 2017-06-22 | 2018-12-27 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | System and method for authoring electronic messages |
CN110852091A (en) * | 2019-11-11 | 2020-02-28 | 杭州安恒信息技术股份有限公司 | Method and device for monitoring wrongly written characters, electronic equipment and computer readable medium |
US20220198143A1 (en) * | 2020-12-22 | 2022-06-23 | Yandex Europe Ag | Method and system for classifying word as obscene word |
CN117236328A (en) * | 2023-11-10 | 2023-12-15 | 深圳市泰铼科技有限公司 | Financial text intelligent checking system based on data analysis |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US7424674B1 (en) | 2008-09-09 |
US6782510B1 (en) | 2004-08-24 |
US9665559B2 (en) | 2017-05-30 |
US20090006950A1 (en) | 2009-01-01 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7424674B1 (en) | Document distribution control system and method based on content | |
US6460015B1 (en) | Method, system and computer program product for automatic character transliteration in a text string object | |
US6278996B1 (en) | System and method for message process and response | |
US6424983B1 (en) | Spelling and grammar checking system | |
Pennebaker et al. | Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001 | |
US6389386B1 (en) | Method, system and computer program product for sorting text strings | |
CA1300272C (en) | Word annotation system | |
US7774193B2 (en) | Proofing of word collocation errors based on a comparison with collocations in a corpus | |
EP1899835B1 (en) | Processing collocation mistakes in documents | |
US20070230787A1 (en) | Method for automated processing of hard copy text documents | |
US20020198859A1 (en) | Method and system for providing web links | |
US6411948B1 (en) | Method, system and computer program product for automatically capturing language translation and sorting information in a text class | |
US7099876B1 (en) | Method, system and computer program product for storing transliteration and/or phonetic spelling information in a text string class | |
US20040250208A1 (en) | Enhanced spelling checking system and method therefore | |
JP4760043B2 (en) | Language analysis method and program | |
Wagner | A review of software tools for spell‐checking taxon names in vegetation databases | |
US7418658B2 (en) | System and method for integrating reference material in an electronic document | |
JP2778025B2 (en) | Learning Co-occurrence Dictionary | |
JPH05151261A (en) | Tense polish supporting system | |
Murata et al. | Resolution of verb ellipsis in Japanese sentence using surface expressions and examples | |
JPH0477857A (en) | Improper expression detecting device | |
KR20210076877A (en) | System and Method for Spell Checking using User Information | |
Bambrook | The Automatic Analysis of Dictionaries Parsing Cobuild Explanations | |
JPH08190570A (en) | Comparison and verification system for document data | |
Underwood et al. | A Draft Manual for the Validation of Lexica. Final Report |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: METEORA, LLC, NEVADA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:GROSS, JOHN NICHOLAS;REEL/FRAME:022902/0696 Effective date: 20090701 Owner name: METEORA, LLC, NEVADA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:GROSS, ANTHONY A;REEL/FRAME:022902/0702 Effective date: 20090701 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: WORDCHECK TECH, LLC, NEVADA Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:METEORA LLC;REEL/FRAME:025169/0572 Effective date: 20100902 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: KINIGOS, LLC, NEVADA Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:WORDCHECK TECH, LLC;REEL/FRAME:033157/0923 Effective date: 20140514 |
|
STCV | Information on status: appeal procedure |
Free format text: COURT PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- AFTER EXAMINER'S ANSWER OR BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: SCA VENTURES LLC, TEXAS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:KINIGOS LLC;REEL/FRAME:055814/0297 Effective date: 20160715 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: J. NICHOLAS AND KRISTIN GROSS TRUST U/A/D APRIL 13, 2010, CALIFORNIA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:KINIGOS LLC;REEL/FRAME:055826/0346 Effective date: 20170630 Owner name: KINIGOS LLC, CALIFORNIA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SCA VENTURES LLC;REEL/FRAME:055826/0322 Effective date: 20170403 |