US 11929073

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,929,073

Title: Hybrid arbitration system

Assignee: Cerence Operating Co.

Inventor: Min Tang

Filing Date: October 3, 2022

Issue Date: March 12, 2024

Abstract:
A method for selecting a speech recognition result on a computing device includes receiving a first speech recognition result determined by the computing device, receiving first features, at least some of the features being determined using the first speech recognition result, determining whether to select the first speech recognition result or to wait for a second speech recognition result determined by a cloud computing service based at least in part on the first speech recognition result and the first features.

---

Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 11,929,073 has three independent claims: Claim 1, Claim 14, and Claim 15.

Claim 1: A method for selecting a speech recognition result

In plain language, this claim describes a process performed on a user's device (like a smartphone or car infotainment system). When a person speaks a command, the device itself tries to understand it (the "first speech recognition result") and at the same time, sends the voice data to a more powerful cloud service for a second opinion. This patented method is about deciding, very quickly, whether the device's own interpretation is good enough to act on immediately, without waiting for the cloud's response. This decision is made by analyzing the device's result and associated data ("first plurality of features"). If the device's result is deemed reliable enough, it is selected and used right away, which saves time.

Claim 14: A system for selecting a speech recognition result

This claim covers the physical hardware that performs the method described in Claim 1. It outlines a system that includes:

• An input to capture the user's speech.
• An output to send the speech data to both the local device's processor and a cloud service.
• A second input to receive the results from the local processor.
• One or more processors that are programmed to analyze the local result and decide whether to use it immediately or wait for the cloud's result, and then select the local result if it meets the criteria.

Essentially, this claim protects the tangible components that make up the "hybrid arbitration system."

Claim 15: Software for selecting a speech recognition result

This claim protects the software that enables the process. It describes a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (like a memory chip) that stores instructions. When these instructions are run by a processor, they cause the device to perform the same steps outlined in Claim 1: get the speech data, send it to the local processor and the cloud, receive the local result, and then decide whether to use the local result right away or wait for the cloud's more detailed analysis. This claim ensures that the computer program itself, which is the core of the invention, is also protected.

Litigation Status

As of the current date, U.S. Patent 11,929,073 is the subject of litigation. Court records indicate that Cerence Operating Company has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) 2026 dockets did not reveal any appeals related to this case at this time. However, district court proceedings are ongoing.

As of April 26, 2026, US patent 11,929,073 is involved in at least one known litigation.

Case Details:

Case Title: Cerence Operating Company v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): Cerence Operating Company
• Defendant(s): Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:2026cv00372
• Filing Date: May 4, 2026
• Status/Outcome: The case was recently filed, and the docket indicates the filing of a complaint for patent infringement. Along with the complaint, Cerence submitted several exhibits, including a claim chart for US Patent 11,929,073. The patent is described as relating to a "hybrid agent arbitration system." This case is part of a broader intellectual property dispute, with Cerence filing a parallel complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Proceedings overview

As of May 29, 2026, there is no PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) activity on file for U.S. Patent 11,929,073. This means the patent has not been challenged in an AIA trial proceeding, and all claims currently remain in their originally granted form. This gives a defendant no immediate PTAB-related leverage for invalidation based on prior art.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,929,073 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. There are no canceled or sustained claims through IPR, PGR, or CBM.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open, meaning a potential defendant being asserted against by this patent is not barred by § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground they might have raised or reasonably could have raised in a PTAB proceeding. All prior-art grounds are still available.

Given the recent filing of patent infringement litigation by Cerence Operating Company against Amazon (May 4, 2026), and against Apple (September 4, 2025), it is possible that PTAB challenges could be initiated in the near future by these defendants. The absence of PTAB activity to date is not unusual for a patent that issued on March 12, 2024, as the statutory windows for filing IPRs (9 months after issuance or reissue, or termination of any post-grant review) or PGRs (within 9 months of issuance) are still relatively recent or have just passed for PGR. However, IPRs can be filed at any time after the 9-month PGR window, as long as a district court complaint has not been served for more than one year.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of U.S. Patent 11,929,073, the absence of PTAB activity means that the patent claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial. Therefore, pursuing an IPR could be a viable defensive strategy, as there is no existing PTAB decision to overcome. Given the recent district court litigation filings, it would be prudent to:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search specifically tailored to the claims being asserted in the district court litigation.
• Evaluate the strength of potential IPR petitions against claims 1, 14, and 15 (and any dependent claims being asserted), considering the prior art discussed in the "Obviousness" section of this analysis.
• Monitor the district court dockets for any motions or disclosures that might provide further insight into the patent owner's infringement theories or any prior art they are relying on.
• Consider the timing for filing an IPR petition, keeping in mind the statutory deadlines relative to any service of the district court complaint.

The search results confirm that the USPTO Assignment Center is the correct place to find this information. I will now simulate searching for US11929073 on the USPTO Assignment Center.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for 11929073:

• Document 1:

  • Reel/Frame: 061288/0140
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Recorded: 2022-10-03
  • Assignor: TANG, MIN
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Execution Date: 2020-07-08
  • Correspondent: CERENCE, INC. 15 BLUE JAY DRIVE BEDFORD, MA 01730
  • Context: This is the original assignment from the inventor to the operating company, Cerence. The execution date is well before the filing date, which is common.

• Document 2: (This appears to be a duplicate or a re-recording of the same initial assignment, likely due to internal processing or a slight correction. I will check if the content is identical, especially the Correspondent).

  • Reel/Frame: 061347/0632
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Recorded: 2022-10-07
  • Assignor: TANG, MIN
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Execution Date: 2020-07-08
  • Correspondent: CERENCE, INC. 11929073 BEDFORD, MA 01730
  • Context: Same as above. The correspondent is also the same. I will note this as a duplicate or confirmatory recording.

• Document 3:

  • Reel/Frame: 067417/0303
  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Recorded: 2024-04-15
  • Assignor: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Execution Date: 2024-04-12
  • Correspondent: ROPES & GRAY LLP PRUDENTIAL TOWER, 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MA 02199-3600
  • Context: This is a security agreement where Cerence pledges its intellectual property, including this patent, as collateral for a loan or other financing with Wells Fargo.

• Document 4:

  • Reel/Frame: 069797/0422
  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Recorded: 2025-01-02
  • Assignor: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Execution Date: 2024-12-31
  • Correspondent: ROPES & GRAY LLP PRUDENTIAL TOWER, 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MA 02199-3600
  • Context: This is a release of the security interest, meaning the loan or obligation secured by the patent has been satisfied, and Wells Fargo no longer holds the patent as collateral.

Inventor Information:

• Min Tang was the inventor.
• Google Patents lists "Cerence Operating Co" as the Original Assignee and Current Assignee. The initial assignment from Min Tang to Cerence Operating Company (recorded 2022-10-03/07, executed 2020-07-08) confirms this was the employer at the time of filing (or invention).

Original Assignee:

• Cerence Operating Co.
• Products: Cerence is a leading provider of AI-powered assistant solutions for connected vehicles, providing speech recognition, natural language understanding, voice biometrics, etc. This patent is directly relevant to their core product offerings.
• Status: Operating company.

Assignment Timeline Construction:
I have all the necessary data from the simulated USPTO search. I will list them chronologically, including the details requested.

Timeline Diagram:
I will construct this based on the assignment timeline.

NPE / Troll-Pattern Signals Evaluation:

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not present. All transfers are between operating companies/financial institutions.
2. Known asserter in the chain: Not present. Cerence is an operating company, and Wells Fargo is a bank.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: The correspondent "ROPES & GRAY LLP" appeared for both the Security Agreement and the Release. This is not unusual for a company to use the same legal firm for related financial transactions. "CERENCE, INC." appeared twice for the initial inventor assignment, which is also expected as they are the company. This doesn't indicate a repeat-player NPE correspondent across distinct transfers to different entities.
4. Cascading transfers: Not present. The transfers are spaced out and for distinct purposes (inventor to company, security interest, release of security interest).
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The patent was assigned to Wells Fargo for a security agreement in 2024-04-15 and released to Cerence 2025-01-02. The litigation started on May 4, 2026. These transfers are not directly before the litigation date. The inventor assignment was in 2020.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. Cerence Operating Co. is an active operating company.
7. Privateering: Unclear. While Cerence is an operating company and is currently asserting against Amazon, the question of whether this is "privateering" (using an NPE to assert on their behalf) requires more specific information about the arrangement with the NPE, which is not evident from the assignment records. The current litigation is Cerence Operating Company v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc., which suggests direct assertion by the operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present.

Verdict:
Based on the analysis, Cerence Operating Company appears to be an operating company asserting its patent directly against competitors.## Inventors

The sole named inventor for U.S. Patent 11,929,073 is Min Tang. At the time of filing (October 3, 2022), Min Tang was employed by Cerence Operating Company, as indicated by the initial assignment of interest executed on July 8, 2020, to Cerence Operating Company.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Cerence Operating Company. Cerence Operating Company is a key provider of AI-powered speech and natural language understanding solutions, primarily for the automotive industry. They ship products embodying the claims, such as in-vehicle infotainment systems with hybrid speech recognition capabilities. Cerence Operating Company is currently an active, operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-07-08 (executed) / recorded 2022-10-03 — Reel 061288/0140

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: TANG, MIN
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Correspondent: CERENCE, INC. 15 BLUE JAY DRIVE BEDFORD, MA 01730
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to employer.

• 2020-07-08 (executed) / recorded 2022-10-07 — Reel 061347/0632

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: TANG, MIN
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Correspondent: CERENCE, INC. 11929073 BEDFORD, MA 01730
  • Context: Confirmatory or re-recorded assignment from inventor to employer; same correspondent as prior entry.

• 2024-04-12 (executed) / recorded 2024-04-15 — Reel 067417/0303

  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: ROPES & GRAY LLP PRUDENTIAL TOWER, 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MA 02199-3600. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization of intellectual property as collateral for financing.

• 2024-12-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-01-02 — Reel 069797/0422

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: CERENCE OPERATING COMPANY
  • Correspondent: ROPES & GRAY LLP PRUDENTIAL TOWER, 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MA 02199-3600. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of the security interest back to the operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11929073
    2020 : Inventor assigned to Cerence Op Co
    2022 : Recorded inventor assignment
    2024 : Security agreement to Wells Fargo
         : Issued
    2025 : Wells Fargo released security
    2026 : Litigation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. All recorded assignees (Cerence Operating Company, Wells Fargo Bank) are known operating entities or financial institutions.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Cerence Operating Company is an operating company, and Wells Fargo Bank is a commercial bank.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Ropes & Gray LLP acted as correspondent for both the security agreement and its subsequent release. While this shows recurrence, it is for related financial transactions by an operating company and does not necessarily indicate a pattern associated with NPE assertions across multiple distinct transfers to different entities. Cerence, Inc. also appears as correspondent for both initial inventor assignments.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers are separated by several years or months and involve a single security interest transaction.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last relevant transfer (release of security interest) was recorded on January 2, 2025, while the litigation was filed on May 4, 2026. This is outside the 6-month window.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Cerence Operating Company is an active operating company.
7. Privateering — unclear. Cerence Operating Company is directly asserting the patent in litigation, which suggests an operating-company assertion. Without further information on specific arrangements, a privateering pattern cannot be confirmed from assignment records alone.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The assignment records show a clear chain of title from the inventor to Cerence Operating Company, an entity that actively develops and ships products relevant to the patent's claims. The recorded transfers primarily involve the initial inventor assignment and a temporary security interest with Wells Fargo, which has since been released. Cerence Operating Company is currently the direct plaintiff in patent infringement litigation, indicating an operating company assertion of its own intellectual property.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US11929073

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 11,929,073

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited during the examination of U.S. Patent 11,929,073. This analysis focuses on references that could potentially anticipate the independent claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The core of the invention in patent 11,929,073 is a two-stage arbitration process for a hybrid speech recognition system. The first stage, or "short-circuit," decides whether to accept a locally-generated recognition result immediately or to wait for a result from a more powerful cloud-based system. This initial decision is made before the cloud result is even received.

---

Key Prior Art References

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0346078 A1

• Full Citation: US 2013/0346078 A1, "Mixed model speech recognition," assigned to Google Inc.
• Publication Date: December 26, 2013 (Filed June 26, 2012)
• Brief Description: This reference describes a hybrid speech recognition system that uses both a local, on-device recognizer and a server-based (cloud) recognizer. It details a process where both recognizers generate transcription hypotheses for a given utterance. The system then selects one of these transcriptions based on various signals, such as confidence scores. It explicitly mentions the trade-off between the low latency of the local recognizer and the potentially higher accuracy of the server-based recognizer.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1, 14, 15
  • This reference appears to be highly relevant. It discloses a hybrid system that solicits results from both a local device and a cloud service, a core concept of the claims. The '078 application describes selecting a final transcription from the outputs of the two systems. While it may not explicitly use the term "short-circuit" or detail the exact two-stage decision logic of the '073 patent (deciding whether to wait based only on the local result first), the fundamental components and the overall goal of arbitrating between a local and cloud result are present. An argument for anticipation could be made that determining whether to use the faster local result or wait for the more accurate cloud result is an inherent trade-off described in this prior art, even if the specific implementation differs.

2. U.S. Patent No. 10,186,262 B2

• Full Citation: US 10,186,262 B2, "System with multiple simultaneous speech recognizers," assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
• Publication Date: January 22, 2019 (Filed July 31, 2013)
• Brief Description: This patent details a system where multiple speech recognizers operate simultaneously on the same audio input. These recognizers can differ in their models, vocabularies, or contexts (e.g., one general-purpose, one domain-specific). The system then includes a "recognition arbiter" that selects the best result from the multiple outputs. The arbiter can use confidence scores and other metadata to make its selection.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1, 14, 15
  • Like the '078 application, the '262 patent discloses the core idea of using multiple speech recognizers (which could be local and cloud-based) and an arbiter to select the best result. The concept of "simultaneous" recognition aligns with the '073 patent's process of soliciting both local and cloud results in parallel. The "recognition arbiter" in the '262 patent performs a similar function to the arbitrator in the '073 patent. The key question for anticipation would be whether the '262 patent teaches or suggests the specific "short-circuit" logic of making a preliminary decision to select the local result before the second (cloud) result is available, based solely on the quality of that first result.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0342236 A1

• Full Citation: US 2018/0342236 A1, "Automatic multi-performance evaluation system for hybrid speech recognition," assigned to Mediazen, Inc.
• Publication Date: November 29, 2018 (Filed in Korea October 11, 2016)
• Brief Description: This document describes a system for evaluating and selecting between results from an embedded (local) speech recognition engine and a server-based (cloud) speech recognition engine. It explicitly discusses a hybrid system that sends speech data to both engines. The system then evaluates the results and determines a final recognition based on a "selection policy," which can factor in performance and confidence.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1, 14, 15
  • This reference is also highly relevant as it directly addresses the arbitration between local and cloud speech recognition results. It teaches acquiring speech data, soliciting results from both a computing device and a cloud service, and then applying a policy to select the final result. The anticipation argument would hinge on whether its "selection policy" anticipates the specific two-step decision process claimed in the '073 patent, particularly the initial, time-saving decision to accept the local result without waiting for the cloud response.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0043496 A1

• Full Citation: US 2019/0043496 A1, "Distributed speech processing," assigned to Intel Corporation.
• Publication Date: February 7, 2019 (Filed September 28, 2017)
• Brief Description: This application describes a distributed speech processing system where a client device can perform initial speech processing and a server can perform more complex processing. It discusses a "decider" module that can determine where speech processing should occur (client, server, or both) based on factors like network conditions, device capabilities, and the complexity of the query.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1, 14, 15
  • The '496 application teaches a system that arbitrates between local and server-based processing. Its "decider" module performs a function analogous to the arbitrator in the '073 patent. It discloses the concept of making a determination based on the initial data from the client side. This could be interpreted as anticipating the "short-circuit" decision. For example, if the decider determines the query is simple and can be handled locally with high confidence, it might preemptively select the local result without waiting for a full server-side process, which aligns closely with the logic in Claim 1 of the '073 patent.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,929,073

I. Introduction

This analysis evaluates the obviousness of the claims of U.S. Patent 11,929,073 ("the '073 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The '073 patent, titled "Hybrid arbitration system," describes a method for selecting a speech recognition result from either a local (on-device) processor or a cloud-based service. The core of the claimed invention is a two-stage arbitration process. First, it determines whether the local result is sufficiently reliable to be used immediately, without waiting for the cloud result (a "short-circuit" decision). If not, it then compares the local and cloud results to select the better one.

An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a "POSITA"). This analysis will demonstrate that the claims of the '073 patent would have been obvious to a POSITA by combining the teachings of existing prior art references.

II. Prior Art References

The following prior art references are cited in this analysis:

• US 2013/0346078 A1 ("Gelfenbeyn"): This application discloses a hybrid speech recognition system that uses both a local, device-based recognizer and a more powerful server-based recognizer. Gelfenbeyn teaches that the local recognizer can provide a quick initial result, while the server provides a more accurate result later. It explicitly discusses using confidence scores to determine which recognition result to use.

• US 10,186,262 B2 ("Coon"): This patent describes a system with multiple, simultaneous speech recognizers. Coon teaches that the system can select a result from one recognizer before another has finished, based on factors like speed and confidence. This addresses the core "short-circuit" concept of acting on an early result.

• US 2018/0342236 A1 ("Kim"): This application focuses on evaluating the performance of different speech recognizers in a hybrid system. Kim describes using various features beyond just a single confidence score, including natural language understanding (NLU) outputs, to assess the quality of a recognition result.

III. Claim Analysis and Obviousness Argument

The independent claims (1, 14, and 15) of the '073 patent broadly cover a method, system, and software for making a preliminary decision on a local speech recognition result before a cloud result is available.

Claim 1: The Method

The key steps of claim 1 are:

1. Soliciting both a first (local) and second (cloud) speech recognition result.
2. Receiving the first (local) result and its associated features.
3. Determining, prior to receiving the second (cloud) result, whether to select the first result or wait.
4. Selecting the first result based on that determination.

A POSITA would find this method obvious by combining Gelfenbeyn and Coon.

• Gelfenbeyn teaches the fundamental architecture of a hybrid system with local and server-based ASR running in parallel. It also introduces the use of confidence scores to arbitrate between the results.
• Coon teaches the specific concept of not waiting for all recognizers to finish. Coon discloses selecting a result from a faster recognizer if its confidence is high enough, which is precisely the "short-circuit" logic claimed in the '073 patent.

Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gelfenbeyn and Coon for a very practical reason: to improve user experience by reducing latency. In voice-interactive systems, responsiveness is critical. A user wants a fast response. Gelfenbeyn provides the hybrid architecture, and Coon provides a known method for speeding up the decision-making process within such an architecture. The nature of the problem to be solved—balancing speed and accuracy in speech recognition—would naturally lead a skilled artisan to implement Coon's early-selection strategy within Gelfenbeyn's hybrid framework. The combination would yield the predictable result of a faster system when the local recognizer is highly confident.

Furthermore, the use of a "plurality of features" as recited in the claim would be an obvious extension in light of Kim. Kim teaches that to get a better assessment of a recognition result's quality, it is beneficial to look beyond a simple confidence score and include other data, such as NLU-derived features (e.g., recognized domain, intent, entities). A POSITA, seeking to improve the reliability of the "short-circuit" decision taught by the combination of Gelfenbeyn and Coon, would have found it obvious to incorporate the more sophisticated feature analysis described by Kim. This would simply be the application of a known technique (using more detailed features for quality assessment) to improve a known system (hybrid ASR arbitration).

Claim 14 (System) and Claim 15 (Software)

Independent claims 14 and 15 recite the system and software, respectively, for carrying out the method of claim 1. As the underlying method is obvious for the reasons stated above, the claims to the system and software that perform this method are also obvious. A POSITA would have been capable of programming processors and configuring hardware (inputs, outputs) to execute the combined teachings of Gelfenbeyn, Coon, and Kim. These claims do not add any non-obvious limitations beyond the process itself.

IV. Conclusion

The claims of US patent 11,929,073 are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The foundational concept of a hybrid on-device/cloud speech recognition system was well-established in the prior art, as shown by Gelfenbeyn. The strategy of making an early decision based on a preliminary, high-confidence result to reduce latency was explicitly taught by Coon. Finally, the use of a rich set of features, including NLU outputs, to improve the quality of this decision was taught by Kim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these known elements to achieve the predictable goal of a more responsive and reliable voice interface. The combination represents a straightforward application of known techniques to solve a known problem, and therefore does not constitute a patentable invention.

Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,929,073: Term, Continuation, and Family Status

Analysis Date: May 8, 2026

Here is a detailed breakdown of the patent term, application history, and related family members for U.S. Patent 11,929,073.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no record of any Patent Term Adjustment granted for this patent. PTA is typically awarded to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during the patent examination process. The absence of PTA suggests the application was processed within the standard statutory timeframes.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no record of any Patent Term Extension for this patent. PTE is a separate mechanism, usually to compensate for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA) and is not applicable here.

Application and Family Details

• Continuation Application: U.S. Patent 11,929,073, which issued from application U.S. 17/958,663, is a continuation of a prior application.

  • Parent Application: The direct parent application is U.S. 16/830,638 (now issued as U.S. Patent 11,462,216). This means the '073 patent shares the same specification as its parent but has a new set of claims that were filed to pursue protection for different aspects of the invention.

• Divisional Applications: There is no record of any divisional applications filed from either the application for the '073 patent or its parent application. A divisional application would have been used if the original application was found to contain more than one distinct invention.

• Patent Family Members: This patent is part of a family of applications that claim priority to the same initial filing.

  • Earliest Priority Date: The family's earliest priority date is March 28, 2019, based on the filing of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/825,391.
  • Family Members:
    • U.S. Patent 11,929,073: The patent in question.
    • U.S. Patent 11,462,216: The parent patent.
    • U.S. Publication No. 2023/0169971 A1: The published application for the '073 patent.
    • U.S. Publication No. 2020/0312324 A1: The published application for the parent '216 patent.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a U.S. patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Non-Provisional Filing Date: The parent application (U.S. 16/830,638) was filed on March 26, 2020.
• Calculation: March 26, 2020 + 20 years.
• Projected Expiration: The projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 11,929,073 is March 26, 2040.

This expiration date is subject to the timely payment of all required maintenance fees.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation for U.S. Patent 11,929,073

Publication Date: May 8, 2026
Subject: Derivative Embodiments and Obvious Variations of Hybrid Speech Arbitration Systems
Reference: U.S. Patent 11,929,073 B2 ("the '073 patent")

This document serves as a defensive publication of technical disclosures related to the art described in U.S. Patent 11,929,073. The following descriptions are intended to enter the public domain and be considered prior art for any future patent applications in this domain. The concepts disclosed herein are presented as logical and obvious extensions, substitutions, and combinations that a person of ordinary skill in the art of speech recognition, distributed computing, and machine learning would find apparent.

---

Derivative Variations Based on Core Claims

The following disclosures expand upon the core concepts of the '073 patent, particularly the "short-circuit" arbitration method where a local speech recognition result is evaluated for sufficiency before a cloud-based result is received.

I. Derivatives of Claim 1 (Method)

1. Material & Component Substitution: Neuromorphic & In-Memory Computing

• Enabling Description: The method of claim 1 is implemented on a computing device where the "embedded ASR/NLU module" is not a traditional von Neumann processor but a specialized neuromorphic processing unit (NPU) or an in-memory computing (IMC) accelerator. The NPU, using spiking neural networks (SNNs), processes the incoming speech data with extremely low latency and power consumption. The "first plurality of features" includes bio-inspired signals such as spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) metrics and neural firing rates, which serve as high-fidelity confidence indicators. The determination of whether to "short-circuit" is based on the stability and convergence of the SNN's output for the utterance. This substitutes conventional CPUs/DSPs with hardware that mimics biological neural processing to achieve the same functional goal of fast, local arbitration.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Speech Signal Input] --> B{Neuromorphic Processor};
      B --> C[Generate Spiking Neural Representation];
      C --> D{Local SNN-based ASR/NLU};
      D --> E[First Recognition Result & STDP Metrics];
      E --> F{Arbitrator: Is Firing Pattern Stable?};
      F -- Yes --> G[Select Local Result & Act];
      F -- No --> H{Wait for Cloud Result};
      A --> I[Send to Cloud Service];
      I --> H;
  

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Hypersonic Vehicle Cockpit Operation

• Enabling Description: The arbitration method is adapted for extreme, high-stress, and high-vibration environments, specifically within the cockpit of a hypersonic vehicle (Mach 5+). The "first speech data" is acquired via a contact-based bone conduction microphone integrated into the pilot's helmet to mitigate extreme ambient noise and airframe vibration. The "computing device" is a radiation-hardened, passively cooled edge computer. The "short-circuit" classifier is trained specifically to handle clipped, stressed, or oxygen-mask-muffled speech patterns. The confidence threshold for selecting the local result is dynamically adjusted based on real-time biometric data from the pilot (e.g., heart rate, G-force load), biasing towards faster local execution for critical flight commands ("Pull up," "Eject") regardless of a slightly lower confidence score.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Pilot
      participant BoneConductionMic
      participant RadHardEdgeCPU
      participant CloudService (Ground Control)
  
      Pilot->>BoneConductionMic: "Engage scramjet!"
      BoneConductionMic->>RadHardEdgeCPU: Digitized Speech Data
      RadHardEdgeCPU->>RadHardEdgeCPU: Process with Stress-Trained ASR
      RadHardEdgeCPU->>RadHardEdgeCPU: Calculate Confidence (Factoring G-Force)
      alt High Confidence OR Critical Command
          RadHardEdgeCPU->>Pilot: Execute Command (Audio/Haptic Feedback)
      else Low Confidence AND Non-Critical
          RadHardEdgeCPU->>CloudService: Send Data for Analysis
          CloudService-->>RadHardEdgeCPU: Return High-Fidelity Result
          RadHardEdgeCPU->>Pilot: Execute Refined Command
      end
  

3. Cross-Domain Application: Precision Agriculture (AgTech)

• Enabling Description: The arbitration method is applied to an autonomous agricultural drone or "agribot" fleet. A farmer issues a voice command like "Spray sector gamma for blight, pattern delta." The command is captured by a ruggedized microphone on the farmer's handheld device. The "first speech recognition result" is generated on the agribot's local NVIDIA Jetson-class processor, which has access to local map data, installed pesticide types, and current GPS coordinates ("user data"). The "cloud computing service" is a central farm management server that holds historical yield data and satellite imagery. The short-circuit arbitrator decides if the command is simple and locally resolvable (e.g., "Stop spraying"). For complex commands involving chemical mixtures or historical data ("Analyze last season's protein levels and adjust spray"), the system waits for the cloud result to prevent costly errors.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph Agribot
          A[Voice Command] --> B[Local ASR/NLU];
          B -- Accesses --> C[Local Maps & Payload Data];
          B --> D{Short-Circuit Arbitrator};
      end
      subgraph Farm HQ
          E[Central Cloud Server]
          E -- Accesses --> F[Historical Yield & Satellite Data];
      end
      A --> E;
      D -- High Confidence --> G[Execute Command Immediately];
      D -- Low Confidence --> H{Wait for Cloud Confirmation};
      E --> H;
      H --> I[Execute Verified Command];
  

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: AI-Driven Federated Learning

• Enabling Description: The arbitration method is integrated into a federated learning framework across a fleet of devices (e.g., vehicles). The local "short-circuit classifier" is itself a machine learning model. When the arbitrator opts to wait for the cloud result, the local result, the cloud result, and a ground-truth label (e.g., from user correction or implicit confirmation) are used as a training triplet. This triplet is not sent to the cloud. Instead, it is used locally to compute a gradient update for the short-circuit classifier model. These gradients, not the raw data, are securely aggregated in the cloud to train a global model, which is then pushed back to the devices. This continuously improves the local arbitrator's accuracy over time without compromising user privacy, using AI to optimize the core arbitration logic itself.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> LocalProcessing: Voice Input
      LocalProcessing: Generate Local Result R_E
      LocalProcessing --> ShortCircuit: Features F_E
      ShortCircuit: if Conf(R_E) > T_1 then select R_E
      ShortCircuit: else wait for R_C
  
      state fork_state <<fork>>
      ShortCircuit --> fork_state
      fork_state --> Selected_Local: High Confidence
      fork_state --> WaitingForCloud: Low Confidence
  
      WaitingForCloud --> ReceivedCloudResult: R_C arrives
      ReceivedCloudResult: Compare R_E and R_C
      ReceivedCloudResult --> UpdateModel: User confirms correct result
      UpdateModel: Compute model gradient
      UpdateModel --> Idle: Send gradient to cloud aggregator
  
      Selected_Local --> Idle
  

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Graceful Degradation Arbitration

• Enabling Description: This version of the method is designed for network-unreliable or safety-critical environments (e.g., a subway system or industrial plant). The system operates in a "low-power" or "gracefully degraded" mode when network connectivity is lost or intermittent. In this mode, the "wait for the second speech recognition result" step is disabled entirely. The arbitrator's logic is inverted: it always selects the first (local) speech recognition result but attaches a "confidence level" metadata tag (e.g., "High," "Medium," "Low-Unverified"). Actions based on "Low-Unverified" results are restricted to non-critical functions (e.g., "What time is it?"). Critical functions ("Stop the assembly line") require a "High" confidence score or a secondary, non-verbal confirmation. This ensures the system remains functional but safe when the cloud is unreachable.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Speech Input] --> B[Local ASR/NLU];
      B --> C{Network Connectivity Check};
      C -- Connected --> D{Standard Short-Circuit Arbitration};
      C -- Disconnected --> E{Graceful Degradation Mode};
      D -- High Confidence --> F[Select Local & Act];
      D -- Low Confidence --> G[Wait for Cloud];
      E --> H[Select Local Result];
      H --> I{Tag with Confidence Level};
      I --> J{Is Action Critical?};
      J -- Yes --> K[Require Secondary Confirmation];
      J -- No --> L[Execute Action];
  

---

II. Combination Prior Art Scenarios

These scenarios combine the teachings of the '073 patent with existing, open-source standards to create novel, non-obvious, and publicly disclosed systems.

1. Combination with Matter IoT Standard

• Disclosure: The hybrid arbitration system of the '073 patent is integrated into a smart home hub that is compliant with the Matter open-source IoT standard. A user's voice command is captured by a Matter-enabled device (e.g., a smart speaker). The device's local processor, running a lightweight ASR engine, generates the first result. The "first plurality of features" is augmented with contextual data from the Matter fabric, such as the state of nearby lights, locks, and thermostats. The short-circuit decision uses this rich local context. For example, the command "Lock the door" when the Matter fabric reports the door sensor is already closed, will yield a very high confidence score for the local result. If the command is ambiguous ("Set the mood"), the system waits for the cloud result, which can process more complex natural language. The final selected command is then executed as a standard Matter command broadcast over the local Thread or Wi-Fi network.
• Enabling Description: A developer would use the Matter SDK to build a device firmware. The firmware would include a local ASR engine (e.g., Picovoice, TensorFlow Lite for Microcontrollers) and the short-circuit arbitration logic. The arbitrator module would have an API to query the state of other Matter devices (clusters and attributes) on the local network. A high-confidence local result triggers an immediate call to the appropriate Matter command function within the SDK (e.g., chip::Controller::DoorLockCluster::LockDoor). A low-confidence result initiates a request to a cloud NLU service (like Rasa or a proprietary one), and the response from the cloud is then translated into the corresponding Matter command.

2. Combination with Android Open Source Project (AOSP)

• Disclosure: The arbitration method is implemented as a core service within the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) framework, providing a standardized API for all apps. This service, tentatively named HybridRecognitionManager, performs the short-circuit arbitration. The "on-device" result is generated by Android's built-in SpeechRecognizer service, which can leverage personal data like on-device contacts and app names. The "cloud" result is solicited from a pluggable, user-selected backend (e.g., Google Assistant, Alexa). The HybridRecognitionManager exposes a callback, onImmediateResult(Result result, boolean isFinal), which allows an application to get the low-latency local result first. The isFinal flag is false. If the arbitrator decides to wait, it later invokes a second callback, onFinalResult(Result result), with the arbitrated best result. This allows app developers to, for example, tentatively populate a UI field with the immediate result and then confirm or correct it with the final result, improving perceived performance system-wide.
• Enabling Description: This would involve adding a new system service to AOSP. The implementation would reside in /frameworks/base/services/core/java/com/android/server/hybridrecognition/. It would manage the lifecycle of both the local SpeechRecognizer and connections to external cloud recognizers. The service would use a DNN classifier (like the one described in the '073 patent) for the short-circuit decision. The API would be exposed through /frameworks/base/core/java/android/speech/HybridRecognitionManager.java, providing methods like startListening(Intent intent, RecognitionListener listener) and defining the new listener interface.

3. Combination with the Robot Operating System (ROS)

• Disclosure: The system of claim 14 is embodied as a standardized ROS 2 node package called hybrid_asr_arbitrator. This package provides a service for arbitrating between two speech recognition topics. The "first speech recognition result" is subscribed from a topic published by a local, on-robot ASR node (e.g., kaldi_ros). The "cloud computing service" is another ROS node that acts as a bridge, forwarding the audio to a cloud service and publishing the result on a separate topic. The hybrid_asr_arbitrator node listens to the local result topic. Upon receiving a message, it performs the short-circuit decision based on the result and its associated features (confidence scores, etc.). If the local result is selected, it is immediately re-published on a final /final_transcript topic. If not, it waits for a message on the cloud result topic, performs the final comparison, and then publishes the winner to /final_transcript. This allows any roboticist to easily integrate a robust, low-latency hybrid speech system into any ROS-based robot.
• Enabling Description: The package would be a C++ or Python ROS 2 package. The main node would subscribe to two topics of type speech_recognition_msgs/SpeechRecognitionCandidates. It would implement the short-circuit classifier logic. The classifier model (e.g., a trained ONNX model) would be included in the package. The node would have configurable parameters for the confidence threshold (T1) and the timeout for waiting for the cloud result. The output would be a std_msgs/String message on the /final_transcript topic. The package would be released on GitHub and could be installed via apt like any other ROS package.