Product Evaluation System Using Context Analysis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Consumers face difficulties in evaluating products due to the complexity of comparing features across different rating engines and spec sheets, as well as identifying product limitations and user-specific attributes, which are not readily available, leading to a cumbersome and inefficient evaluation process.

Innovation Solution

A product evaluation system that utilizes attribute-level processing and user context analysis to generate a composite feature list and matrix for each product, analyzing usage context and user attributes to evaluate compatibility at a feature level, thereby simplifying the comparison process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Quantity of substance

If multiple rating engines and product spec sheets are used to provide comprehensive product information, then the quantity of information available for evaluation increases, but the complexity of comparing products across different features increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvequantity of informationVSAvoidcomplexity of comparison

Core Design Contradiction:

Quantity of substanceVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments product information into standardized feature categories and attributes, organizing data from multiple rating engines into structured components that can be independently compared. This segmentation allows the system to handle comprehensive information while maintaining manageable complexity through systematic organization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent creates a universal evaluation framework that can process and compare products across different categories using standardized feature sets. This multi-functional approach allows the same system to evaluate diverse products by mapping them to common feature dimensions, reducing comparison complexity while maintaining information comprehensiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Quantity of substance

If natural-language text of reviews is analyzed to extract feature information, then the completeness of feature coverage increases, but the time and effort required for evaluation increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompleteness of feature coverageVSAvoidtime and effort required

Core Design Contradiction:

Quantity of substanceVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary processing of review text to pre-extract and structure feature information before the actual product evaluation occurs. By pre-processing and organizing review content into standardized feature formats in advance, the system reduces the time required during the actual evaluation phase while maintaining comprehensive feature coverage.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual reading and analysis of natural-language reviews with automated text processing and information extraction systems. This substitution of mechanical human effort with automated computational processes enables comprehensive feature extraction from review text without proportionally increasing evaluation time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Ease of operation

If product features are evaluated without considering user-specific attributes, then the simplicity of the evaluation process is maintained, but the accuracy of product recommendations decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesimplicity of evaluationVSAvoidaccuracy of recommendations

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by tailoring the evaluation to specific user attributes and contexts. Instead of a uniform evaluation approach, the system adjusts feature weights and criteria based on individual user characteristics, maintaining simplicity through automated personalization while improving recommendation accuracy through context-aware evaluation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

4Device complexity

If cross-domain dependencies between products are not analyzed, then the complexity of the evaluation system is reduced, but the usefulness of the information for consumers decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomplexity of evaluation systemVSAvoidusefulness of information

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges evaluation data from multiple product domains by analyzing cross-domain dependencies and interactions. The system combines information about how different products work together across domains, providing comprehensive usefulness information while managing complexity through integrated analysis frameworks that systematically handle multi-domain relationships.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS9552429B1Product evaluation system featuring user context analysis

Publication Date: 2017.01.24 MAPLEBEAR INC

AI summary

A system, method and program product that provides product evaluations. A system is disclosed that includes: a system for identifying a set of products based on an inputted query; a system for collecting structured and unstructured data associated with the set of products; a system for generating a composite feature list from the structured and unstructured data; a system for generating a matrix for each identified product, wherein the matrix provides a set of features and any known limitations and benefits determined from the structured and unstructured data for each of the features; and a rating system that analyzes a usage context in view of the known limitations and benefits to evaluate each product at a feature level.