US 10297249

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 10,297,249, including details of recent legal activity.

Summary of U.S. Patent 10,297,249

Title: System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface

Assignee: VB Assets LLC

Inventors: Larry Baldwin, Tom Freeman, Michael Tjalve, Blane Ebersold, Chris Weider

Filing Date: April 20, 2015

Issue Date: May 21, 2019

Abstract:
A cooperative conversational voice user interface is provided. The cooperative conversational voice user interface may build upon short-term and long-term shared knowledge to generate one or more explicit and/or implicit hypotheses about an intent of a user utterance. The hypotheses may be ranked based on varying degrees of certainty, and an adaptive response may be generated for the user. Responses may be worded based on the degrees of certainty and to frame an appropriate domain for a subsequent utterance. In one implementation, misrecognitions may be tolerated, and conversational course may be corrected based on subsequent utterances and/or responses.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent has two independent claims which outline the core inventions:

Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a voice-controlled computer system to have a more natural, cooperative conversation with a user. The system receives a spoken request, figures out the user's likely intent by creating several possible interpretations (hypotheses), and then ranks these possibilities based on how certain it is about each one. This ranking is influenced by both short-term memory from the current conversation and long-term knowledge about the user. The system then gives an "adaptive" response, which is a reply or action tailored to the certainty of its interpretation. A key aspect is the system's ability to learn from the conversation; for instance, if an interpretation is wrong, it won't make the same mistake again for the same spoken input.

Independent Claim 13: This claim describes the computer system itself, designed to carry out the method from Claim 1. It specifies a system with at least one processor and memory that stores instructions for performing the cooperative conversational process. This includes modules for building "shared knowledge" from conversations, generating and ranking hypotheses about the user's intent based on this knowledge, and then creating an adaptive response. Like the method, the system is designed to correct its own course during a conversation, for example, by not repeating incorrect interpretations.

Litigation Status

As of April 2026, U.S. Patent 10,297,249 is the subject of ongoing litigation. The patent owner, VB Assets LLC, has asserted this patent in a case against SoundHound AI, Inc. (Case 1:24-cv-01279) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Recent court filings in March 2026 indicate that the case is active, with the parties engaged in procedural matters such as amending complaints and establishing timelines for claim construction. This patent is one of several related to conversational AI technology that VB Assets LLC is currently litigating. No directly related cases were found in the CAFC dockets for 2026.

As of April 26, 2026, U.S. Patent 10,297,249 is involved in the following litigation:

• Plaintiff(s): VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): SoundHound AI, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01279
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the case was filed "last month" relative to a January 31, 2025, article, implying a December 2024 filing.
• Outcome/Current Status: The case is active and has been assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika.

It is also important to note that VB Assets, LLC, the current assignee of US10297249B2, was involved in litigation against Amazon.com Services LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where a jury found that Amazon willfully infringed claims of four patents owned by VB Assets, LLC. While US10297249B2 was listed as one of the patents asserted against Apple in a separate complaint, it was not among the patents specifically mentioned as infringed by Amazon in the jury verdict for the 2023 trial. The patents involved in the Amazon case were US Patent No. 8,073,681, US Patent No. 9,626,703, US Patent No. 7,818,176, and US Patent No. 9,269,097.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,297,249. This proceeding, IPR2025-01365, was "Not Instituted - Procedural" due to a discretionary denial. This outcome means the patent claims were not challenged on their merits in this specific IPR, which generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture as its claims remain unadjudicated in this proceeding.

IPR2025-01365 — AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-30
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. This means the PTAB, specifically the Director, decided not to initiate a full review of the patent's claims based on discretionary grounds rather than the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for the discretionary denial decision is not explicitly public in the provided search snippets, as recent changes in USPTO policy mean that discretionary denial issues are reviewed by the Director and selected judges before a merits-based panel is assigned. However, James A. Tartal is listed as a PTAB Judge, though his specific involvement in this case's discretionary denial is not confirmed by the provided data.
• Petition grounds: The claims challenged and the specific prior art and statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for Amazon's petition are not detailed in the provided search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-12-11. The denial was procedural and discretionary. This likely involved considerations such as "settled expectations" due to the patent's age, the petitioner's knowledge of the patent, or other factors under the USPTO's interim procedure for discretionary denials that became effective in March 2025. Under this new bifurcated process, the Director first decides discretionary considerations, and only if not denied, a three-member panel addresses the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: No information about settlement or termination beyond the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal of a Final Written Decision, as no FWD was issued. Decisions to deny institution are generally non-appealable.
• Defensive value: The claims of US 10,297,249 remain untested on their merits in this IPR. While this specific IPR did not invalidate any claims, it highlights that a discretionary denial does not address the underlying patentability of the claims, meaning future challenges based on different grounds or under different discretionary considerations might still be possible.

Strategic summary

Only one IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01365, has been filed against US Patent 10,297,249. This IPR was discretionarily denied on procedural grounds, meaning the patentability of its claims was not evaluated on the merits. Consequently, all claims of US 10,297,249 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB in this proceeding. The patent has not been narrowed or challenged on validity in this particular IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since the petition was denied institution on procedural grounds, there is no final written decision on the merits. This generally means that statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (which bars a petitioner or its privies from asserting in a civil action or ITC proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR) would not apply regarding the patentability merits themselves. However, the specific grounds on which institution was denied could impact future petitions. Amazon.com Services LLC, as the petitioner, was unable to secure institution, and its ability to challenge the patent on the same or substantially the same grounds in a future IPR or other forum might be limited depending on the exact reasoning for the discretionary denial. The denial appears to be based on newer USPTO discretionary denial policies, potentially related to "settled expectations" given the patent's issue date of May 21, 2019, or other procedural factors.

A pattern signal is that this IPR is one of several filed by Amazon.com Services LLC against patents owned by VB Assets LLC, many of which also show a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. This suggests a concerted effort by Amazon to challenge VB Assets LLC's portfolio, and VB Assets LLC has been successful in fending off institution on procedural grounds in these specific cases.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is important to understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01365. While the claims were not invalidated, the denial was procedural and not a validation of the claims' patentability. A defendant should investigate if other prior art or arguments could be presented in a new IPR petition that might overcome the specific discretionary grounds that led to the denial of IPR2025-01365. If the discretionary denial was based on factors like "settled expectations" due to the patent's age, newer petitions might face similar hurdles unless compelling reasons for review are presented. The patent is still active and has not had its claims substantively challenged and invalidated by the PTAB.## Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,297,249. This proceeding, IPR2025-01365, was "Not Instituted - Procedural" due to a discretionary denial. This outcome means the patent claims were not challenged on their merits in this specific IPR, which generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture as its claims remain unadjudicated in this proceeding.

IPR2025-01365 — AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-30
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. This indicates that the PTAB, specifically the Director, declined to initiate a full review of the patent's claims based on discretionary grounds, rather than evaluating the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for the discretionary denial decision is not explicitly identified in the provided search results. Recent USPTO policy changes (effective March 2025) indicate that discretionary denial grounds are reviewed by the Director and selected judges before a merits-based institution analysis by a separate panel.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) of Amazon's petition are not detailed in the available information.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-12-11. The denial was procedural and discretionary. This likely involved considerations such as the patent's age contributing to "settled expectations," or other factors outlined in the USPTO's interim procedure for discretionary denials. Under this bifurcated process, the Director first considers discretionary factors, and only if denial is not warranted, the petition proceeds to a three-member panel for merits review.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution of the IPR was denied.
• Settlement / termination: No information regarding a settlement or termination beyond the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: There was no appeal of a Final Written Decision because no FWD was issued. Decisions to deny institution are generally non-appealable.
• Defensive value: The claims of US 10,297,249 were not substantively challenged or invalidated in this IPR proceeding. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been weakened by this specific IPR. However, it also suggests that future IPR attempts by Amazon or related parties might encounter similar procedural hurdles if the basis for discretionary denial persists.

Strategic summary

Only one IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01365, has been filed against US Patent 10,297,249. This IPR was discretionarily denied on procedural grounds, meaning the patentability of its claims was not evaluated on the merits. Consequently, all claims of US 10,297,249 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB in this particular proceeding. The patent has not been narrowed or found unpatentable in this IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since the petition was denied institution on procedural grounds, and there was no final written decision on the merits, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (which bars petitioners from re-raising grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised) would typically not apply to the merits of patentability. However, the specific grounds for the discretionary denial could influence the viability of subsequent petitions from the same petitioner or its privies. The denial likely stemmed from the USPTO's newer discretionary denial policies, potentially involving "settled expectations" given the patent's issue date of May 21, 2019, or other procedural factors, which could make re-filing a similar petition challenging.

A clear pattern signal is that Amazon.com Services LLC, the petitioner in IPR2025-01365, has filed multiple IPRs against patents owned by VB Assets LLC, with many of these proceedings also resulting in "Not Instituted - Procedural" statuses. This indicates a strategic approach by both the petitioner in challenging the portfolio and the patent owner in successfully defending against institution on procedural grounds.

Recommended next steps

As there are no claims invalidated in IPR2025-01365, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim cancellation. The absence of a merits decision means the patent's claims remain robust from a PTAB perspective thus far. For a defendant, it would be crucial to analyze the specific decision for IPR2025-01365 (if a detailed one is publicly available beyond the status update) to understand the exact procedural grounds for denial. This information would be vital for assessing whether a new IPR petition, perhaps with different prior art or arguments, could overcome those discretionary hurdles. Given the ongoing litigation against SoundHound AI, Inc., this patent is actively being asserted, making any potential PTAB strategy highly relevant.

Inventors

• Larry Baldwin
• Tom Freeman
• Michael Tjalve
• Blane Ebersold
• Chris Weider

At the time of filing, the inventors were associated with Voicebox Technologies, Inc., which subsequently merged into Voicebox Technologies Corporation. The initial application was filed by VB Assets LLC, but the inventors assigned their interest to Voicebox Technologies, Inc. the day after filing, indicating their employment or affiliation with Voicebox.

Original assignee

The entity named as the "Original Assignee" on Google Patents is VB Assets LLC. However, the inventors assigned their rights to VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. the day after the patent application was filed (2015-04-21), which then merged into VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION on the same day.

Voicebox Technologies was an American developer of natural language understanding (NLU), conversational AI, and automated speech recognition (ASR) software, founded in 2001. They shipped products embodying the claims, including voice AI platforms for connected auto, mobile phones, and IoT devices, partnering with companies like Toyota and Samsung.

Voicebox Technologies Corporation was acquired by Nuance Communications in May 2018 for an estimated $82-84 million. Therefore, its current status is acquired.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-04-21 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: BALDWIN, LARRY; EBERSOLD, BLANE; FREEMAN, TOM; TJALVE, MICHAEL; WEIDER, CHRIS (inventors)
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the inventors to the operating company.

• 2015-04-21 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization.

• 2017-12-22 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Patent used as collateral for a financial agreement (securitization).

• 2018-04-05 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Release of the security interest, returning full rights to Voicebox Technologies Corporation.

• 2018-07-25 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the acquired operating company (Voicebox Technologies Corporation) to VB Assets, LLC, after Voicebox's acquisition by Nuance in May 2018.

• 2019-04-12 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Patent used as collateral for a financial agreement (securitization).

• 2019-06-13 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Release of the security interest.

• 2020-01-22 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: VB ASSETTS LLC (recorded with a typo "Assetts")
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights to Nuance Communications, Inc., the company that acquired Voicebox.

• 2020-09-22 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date) — Reel 051581/0216 (cited in event description)

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to amend prior recording and confirm assignment of interest to VB Assets, LLC, effectively re-establishing VB Assets, LLC as the owner of record for this patent.

• 2025-04-08 (executed) / recorded N/A (Google Patents event date)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: CONTINGENCY CAPITAL FUND A LP
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided text.
  • Context: Patent used as collateral for a financial agreement (securitization).

Note: The provided Google Patents text does not include specific USPTO recording dates or reel/frame numbers for all events, except for one corrective assignment. It also does not list the names, firms, or addresses of the correspondents who filed these assignments with the USPTO.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10297249
    2015 : Filed by VB Assets LLC
         : Assigned to Voicebox Tech Inc
         : Merged to Voicebox Tech Corp
    2017 : Security interest ORIX
    2018 : ORIX security released
         : Assigned to VB Assets LLC
    2019 : Security interest DELPHI
         : DELPHI security released
    2020 : Assigned to Nuance Comm Inc
         : Corrective assign to VB Assets LLC
    2024 : First infringement suit filed
    2025 : Security interest Contingency Capital

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer
   • Present. The transfer from VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (an operating company, acquired by Nuance) to VB ASSETS, LLC on 2018-07-25 via a Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, followed by VB Assets, LLC becoming the active plaintiff in litigation, indicates a transfer to a licensing-focused entity. VB Assets, LLC's name itself suggests an IP holding company, and its involvement in multiple security interest agreements (2019-04-12, 2025-04-08) supports an IP monetization strategy. Reel/Frame N/A for 2018-07-25 event.
2. Known asserter in the chain
   • Present. VB Assets LLC is the current assignee and is actively asserting this patent in litigation against SoundHound AI, Inc. (Case 1:24-cv-01279, filed in 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware), as stated in the "Litigation Status" section of the prompt.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain
   • Unclear. The provided Google Patents data does not include details on the correspondent attorney or firm for any of the assignment records. Therefore, it's not possible to determine if there's a repeat correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers
   • Not present. While there are several assignments and security interests, they are spaced out over years and do not represent rapid, consecutive transfers through chained LLCs within a 24-month window as typically defined for this signal. The two internal transfers on 2015-04-21 are an exception, but they are an internal reorganization, not a cascading transfer to different entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer
   • Not present. The transfer to VB Assets, LLC (the current asserter) occurred on 2018-07-25 and was confirmed by a corrective assignment on 2020-09-22. The first infringement suit for this patent was filed in 2024. Neither of these transfers occurred within 6 months prior to the commencement of litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale
   • Unclear. While Voicebox Technologies Corporation was acquired by Nuance in 2018, there is no explicit information in the provided text or search results to indicate that this acquisition or subsequent transfers were a result of bankruptcy proceedings for Voicebox Technologies Corporation. ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC is a private equity firm, and its involvement with Voicebox (2017-12-22 security interest, 2018-04-05 release) was likely part of investment or acquisition financing rather than bankruptcy.
7. Privateering
   • Unclear. The patent was assigned to Nuance Communications, Inc. in 2020 (2020-01-22), but then transferred back to VB ASSETS, LLC via a corrective assignment (2020-09-22). Given that Nuance acquired Voicebox, and VB Assets, LLC is now asserting the patent, it's possible VB Assets, LLC is acting on behalf of Nuance or a group related to the original Voicebox stakeholders post-acquisition. However, there is no explicit evidence to confirm a privateering arrangement where Nuance is directing or benefiting from VB Assets LLC's assertion against its competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE)
   • Not present. The chain currently terminates with VB Assets LLC, an active plaintiff, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is supported by the shell-entity transfer from an acquired operating company (Voicebox Technologies Corporation) to VB Assets, LLC on 2018-07-25, which has since engaged in multiple securitization transactions (e.g., with DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION on 2019-04-12, and CONTINGENCY CAPITAL FUND A LP on 2025-04-08). Most significantly, VB Assets, LLC is a known asserter as it is currently litigating this patent in federal court (Case 1:24-cv-01279 filed in 2024) [cite: Delaware District Court]. The corrective assignment on 2020-09-22 (Reel 051581 Frame 0216) which returned ownership to VB Assets, LLC from Nuance Communications, Inc. further highlights strategic IP management consistent with an assertion entity.

(Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10,297,249, I need to access the patent's full citation list. Since I cannot directly browse the USPTO database in real-time to extract the full list of cited prior art and their descriptions, I will rely on the provided patent text, which often includes such information within its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" and "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" sections, as well as the list of "Prior art documents" typically found in patent records.

Based on the provided patent text, here are the prior art references explicitly mentioned and incorporated by reference:

Prior Art for US Patent 10,297,249

The patent US10297249B2 references several prior art documents, particularly in the context of its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" and within the description of the "context determination process."

1. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,269

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,269, entitled “Dynamic Speech Sharpening,” filed Aug. 31, 2006, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 on Dec. 15, 2009.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 31, 2006.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes techniques for phonetic dictation to recognize a phoneme stream, used by the speech recognition engine 110.
   • Potentially Anticipates: This prior art primarily relates to the underlying speech recognition technology mentioned in the descriptions of both independent claims, specifically the processing of a user's utterance by a "speech recognition engine (ASR)" to generate preliminary interpretations (Claim 1 and Claim 13). It details how the initial acoustic-to-text conversion might be performed.

2. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,504

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,504, entitled “Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance,” filed Aug. 5, 2005, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 on Dec. 29, 2009.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 5, 2005.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterances, specifically how one or more context domain agents compete to determine the most appropriate domain for a given utterance within the context determination process 255.
   • Potentially Anticipates: This directly relates to the "context determination process" described in both independent claims, particularly how the system establishes meaning within a conversation by determining one or more contexts for a request. It details the use of competing context domain agents to determine the most appropriate domain for an utterance (Claim 1 and Claim 13).

3. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/212,693

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/212,693, entitled “Mobile Systems and Methods of Supporting Natural Language Human-Machine Interactions,” filed Aug. 29, 2005, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,949,529 on May 24, 2011.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 29, 2005.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes mobile systems and methods for supporting natural language human-machine interactions, also in the context of how one or more context domain agents compete to determine the most appropriate domain for a given utterance within the context determination process 255.
   • Potentially Anticipates: Similar to the previous reference, this directly relates to the "context determination process" described in both independent claims, especially concerning the use of competing context domain agents for disambiguating utterances and establishing context (Claim 1 and Claim 13).

4. "Enhancing the VUE™ (Voice-User-Experience) Through Conversational Speech"

   • Full Citation: "Enhancing the VUE™ (Voice-User-Experience) Through Conversational Speech," by Tom Freeman and Larry Baldwin.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but it is a published work incorporated by reference within the patent's detailed description.
   • Brief Description: This work describes how the free form voice search module 245, noise tolerance module 250, and context determination process 255 communicate with a voice search engine 225 that includes context domain agents 230 and vocabularies 235 to aid in interpreting utterances and generating responses.
   • Potentially Anticipates: This document broadly covers aspects of the "conversational speech engine" and its components, including free-form voice search, noise tolerance, and context determination, which are foundational to the cooperative conversational model described in both independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 13). Since two of the inventors of 10,297,249 are also authors of this work, it likely represents foundational work that predates the priority date of the current patent.

It is important to note that the priority date for US10297249B2 is listed as October 16, 2006. Any prior art with an effective filing or publication date before this would be relevant for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. All listed references here have filing dates prior to October 16, 2006.

The current date is April 26, 2026.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10,297,249 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention, based on prior art references. This includes demonstrating a motivation to combine the references and a reasonable expectation of success.

The present analysis identifies potential combinations of prior art references cited within US Patent 10,297,249 itself, as these references are explicitly acknowledged by the inventors as relevant to the field.

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):

Claim 1 describes a method for a computer system to engage in a cooperative conversational voice user interface. Key elements include:

• Receiving a human utterance.
• Generating one or more preliminary interpretations of the utterance.
• Providing these to a conversational speech engine.
• Generating one or more hypotheses of a user's intent, leveraging short-term and long-term shared knowledge.
• Ranking hypotheses by certainty.
• Generating an adaptive conversational response based on the ranked hypotheses.
• Learning from incorrect interpretations to avoid repetition for identical utterances.

Combination 1: U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 (Dynamic Speech Sharpening) in combination with U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 (Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,949,529 (Mobile Systems and Methods of Supporting Natural Language Human-Machine Interactions).

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 ("Dynamic Speech Sharpening"): This patent is cited in US 10,297,249 for its description of a speech recognition engine (ASR 110) that interprets utterances using phonetic dictation to recognize a phoneme stream. This addresses the "receiving a human utterance" and "generating one or more preliminary interpretations of the utterance" elements of Claim 1.
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 ("Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance") and U.S. Pat. No. 7,949,529 ("Mobile Systems and Methods of Supporting Natural Language Human-Machine Interactions"): These patents are explicitly incorporated by reference and described as determining one or more contexts for a request by having context domain agents compete to determine the most appropriate domain for a given utterance. This directly addresses the "providing these to a conversational speech engine," and "generating one or more hypotheses of a user's intent" elements, particularly in the context of disambiguation and using context. The concept of "shared knowledge" (both short-term and long-term) is also fundamental to the cooperative conversational model described in US 10,297,249, which builds upon context determination. The idea of context determination inferring intended operations based on previous utterances, and removing incorrect interpretations to prevent repetition, is also explicitly detailed in US 10,297,249 and attributed to its context determination process, which builds upon these prior art references.

Motivation for Combination and Expectation of Success:

A POSITA at the time of the invention (October 16, 2006, based on the priority date) would have been motivated to combine the speech recognition capabilities of U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 with the natural language understanding and context determination methods of U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,949,529. The motivation would be to create a more robust and "cooperative" voice user interface that moves beyond simple command-and-control systems. U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 provides the foundational speech-to-text conversion. The latter two patents provide mechanisms for understanding the meaning of that text within a conversation, resolving ambiguities, and leveraging past interactions, which are crucial for a "cooperative" interface. The explicit incorporation by reference and the detailed descriptions in US 10,297,249 of how its features (like context determination) build upon these prior patents suggest a clear motivation and a high expectation of success for such a combination. The "learning from incorrect interpretations" feature, for example, is presented as an advancement over existing systems that repeatedly make the same errors, implying that the underlying context determination process from the earlier patents would be improved upon by this learning mechanism.

Independent Claim 13 (System Claim):

Claim 13 describes a computer system with a processor and memory configured to perform the method of Claim 1. This includes modules for building shared knowledge, generating and ranking hypotheses, and creating adaptive responses, with the ability to correct conversational course and not repeat incorrect interpretations.

Combination 2: A computer system implementing U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,409 in combination with U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,949,529.

• The system aspects of Claim 13 are directly tied to the method of Claim 1. Therefore, a computer system designed to implement the combined methods described above would render Claim 13 obvious. The prior art references describe the underlying mechanisms (speech recognition engine, context domain agents) that would reside within such a computer system, or be accessible by it (e.g., databases 130). US 10,297,249 itself states that the speech recognition engine, conversational speech engine, and databases may reside locally or remotely, or in a hybrid model.

Motivation for Combination and Expectation of Success:

A POSITA would recognize that to implement the cooperative conversational methods, a computer system would be required. The "modules" for building shared knowledge, generating hypotheses, and creating adaptive responses are simply the software and hardware implementations of the methods described in the combination of prior art. The motivation would be to provide a functional system that embodies the advancements in conversational AI. Given that the prior art already describes the functional components, building a system to integrate these functions would be a straightforward engineering task for a POSITA. The patent itself describes the system architecture as "exemplary" (FIG. 1) and the conversational speech engine (FIG. 2) as including "modules," implying these are known components arranged to perform the described functions.