US 7818176

A technical analysis of US Patent 7,818,176 reveals a foundational patent in the field of voice-based advertising, detailing a system for delivering targeted ads in response to natural language speech.

Title: System and method for selecting and presenting advertisements based on natural language processing of voice-based input.

Assignee at Grant: VoiceBox Technologies, Inc. Subsequent assignment records indicate the patent is now held by VB Assets, LLC.

Inventors: Tom Freeman, Mike Kennewick

Filing Date: February 6, 2007

Issue Date: October 19, 2010

Abstract: The patent describes a system and method for choosing and showing ads based on the natural language processing of spoken input. A user's spoken words are received, and a conversational processor identifies a request. An advertisement is then selected and presented to the user based on this request. The ad can be delivered in a conversational, natural language format. The system also tracks the user's interaction with the ad to build statistical profiles, which helps in refining future ad selections.

Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent has four independent claims: 1, 14, 27, and 40.

Claim 1: The Core Method
In plain language, this claim describes the fundamental process. It starts with receiving a person's spoken request. A speech recognition engine then figures out the words in that request by breaking the speech down into phonetic sounds and generating a preliminary interpretation. A "conversational language processor" then establishes the context of the request. Based on this context, an advertisement is selected and presented to the user.

Claim 14: The "Adaptive Misrecognition" Method
This claim is similar to the first but adds a key feature: error correction. It outlines a method that includes determining if the system misunderstood the user's words. If a mistake is detected (for example, if the user quickly says something else, stops the request, or repeats themselves), the system is designed to reinterpret the original spoken words. This "adaptive misrecognition" is a crucial element for improving the accuracy and usability of the voice-based system.

Claim 27: The System for the Core Method
This claim essentially describes the physical system that carries out the method in Claim 1. It details a system comprised of an input device (like a microphone), a speech recognition engine, and a conversational language processor. The claim specifies that the speech recognition engine is configured to map the phonetic stream of a user's speech to generate a preliminary interpretation of the words. The conversational language processor then interprets these words in context to select and present an ad.

Claim 40: The System with "Adaptive Misrecognition"
Paralleling Claim 14, this claim describes the system that includes the "adaptive misrecognition" capability. It outlines a system with an input device, a speech recognition engine, a conversational language processor, and an "adaptive misrecognition engine." This last component is responsible for detecting if there has been a misinterpretation of the user's speech and triggering a reinterpretation. Recent court documents from a case in the District of Delaware confirm that claim 40 of this patent has been asserted in litigation.

A search of the CAFC dockets for 2026 did not reveal any pending cases specifically referencing US Patent 7,818,176. However, given the patent's subject matter and its assertion in district court, it remains a significant asset in the voice-assistant technology space.

Litigation History for US Patent 7,818,176

As of May 1, 2026, US Patent 7,818,176, currently assigned to VB Assets, LLC, has been involved in extensive litigation, including multiple district court cases and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), several of which have led to appeals at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

District Court Litigation

1. VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and other related Amazon entities.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-01410-MN
• Filing Date: July 26, 2019
• Status/Outcome: In November 2023, a jury found that Amazon infringed on several patents, including claim 40 of the '176 patent. The jury awarded VB Assets over $40 million after post-trial motions and established ongoing royalty rates. The case was subsequently appealed to the CAFC (see case 2025-1854 below) and was dismissed on April 29, 2026, after the parties reached an agreement.

2. VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors LLC

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): General Motors LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01279
• Filing Date: October 2, 2024
• Status/Outcome: This case is currently active.

3. VB Assets, LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01368
• Filing Date: October 28, 2024
• Status/Outcome: The complaint asserts six patents related to natural language processing against devices supporting the Siri virtual assistant. The case is currently active.

4. VB Assets, LLC v. [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00828
• Filing Date: October 9, 2024
• Status/Outcome: This case, targeting Samsung's Bixby 2.0 products, is currently active.

5. VB Assets, LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00828
• Filing Date: This appears to be an error in the provided litigation data from the patent source; this case number corresponds to the Samsung case. Further investigation would be needed to clarify the details of the litigation against Toyota.
• Status/Outcome: Unknown due to conflicting case number information.

6. VB Assets, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
• Defendant(s): Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi of America, LLC, and Audi AG
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01368
• Filing Date: This also appears to be an error in the litigation data from the patent source, as this case number corresponds to the Apple case. Clarification is required.
• Status/Outcome: Unknown due to conflicting case number information.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

1. IPR2020-01390

• Petitioner: Amazon.com, Inc.
• Status/Outcome: Petition for Inter Partes Review was filed. The PTAB declined to institute a trial on the merits.

2. IPR2025-00867

• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Status/Outcome: Petition for Inter Partes Review was filed but was not instituted due to procedural reasons.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Appeals

Multiple appeals involving this patent family have been filed at the CAFC, primarily stemming from the district court cases.

• Case Number: 25-1854

  • Details: Appeal from the Amazon case (1:19-cv-01410) in Delaware.
  • Status/Outcome: The case was dismissed on April 29, 2026, by agreement of the parties, likely indicating a settlement.

• Case Numbers: 25-1113, 25-1142, 25-1357

  • Details: These appeal numbers are listed in the patent's litigation history. Without specific party information, they are presumed to be related to the various district court proceedings involving VB Assets, LLC.
  • Status/Outcome: The current status of these appeals is pending further docket research.

This extensive litigation history highlights the commercial significance of US Patent 7,818,176 and the broader patent portfolio held by VB Assets, LLC in the competitive field of voice-assistant and natural language processing technology.

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7,818,176, both resulting in a denial of institution, one on the merits and one for procedural reasons. This indicates a hardened defensive posture for the patent, as no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB.

IPR2020-01390 — Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-08-25
• Status: Institution Denied (Merits) – The PTAB declined to institute a trial on the merits, finding the petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, Zhenyu Wang
• Petition grounds: Amazon challenged claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-24, 28-39, and 41-52 of US 7,818,176 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The prior art asserted included US 2005/0288925 (Van), US 7,398,209 (Kennewick '209), US 2005/0240398 (Ginsberg), US 2004/0049405 (Freitas), and US 6,499,013 (Jourjine).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2020-12-14. The panel found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that Amazon did not sufficiently demonstrate that the asserted prior art combinations taught or rendered obvious certain claim limitations, particularly those related to the "mapping a stream of phonemes... to one or more syllables" as required by claims such as independent claim 1.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed following the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly strengthens the patent owner's position. Amazon's attempt to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-24, 28-39, and 41-52 on obviousness grounds using specific prior art was unsuccessful, and institution was denied on the merits. This means those challenged claims have withstood a PTAB challenge, and Amazon (and its privies) are estopped from raising the same or substantially similar arguments against these claims.

IPR2025-00867 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-03-27
• Status: Not Instituted (Procedural) – The PTAB declined to institute a trial due to procedural reasons.
• Judge panel: Not publicly detailed in summary records for procedural denials. The decision would list the panel.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims and prior art challenged are not detailed in the publicly available summary for this procedural denial. Procedural denials typically relate to formal defects rather than an assessment of patentability on the merits.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-09-03 (Procedural). The institution was denied for procedural reasons, meaning the petition did not meet formal or regulatory requirements for institution, rather than a substantive assessment of the claims' patentability.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed following the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: While institution was denied, the procedural nature means there was no merits-based assessment of the claims' patentability. The full extent of estoppel against Samsung (and its privies) would depend on the specific procedural grounds for denial and the arguments raised in the petition. However, it does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the claims themselves.

Strategic summary

No claims of US Patent 7,818,176 have been canceled by the PTAB. Both IPRs filed against the patent were denied institution. In IPR2020-01390, a significant portion of the patent's claims (1, 2, 4-13, 16-24, 28-39, and 41-52) were challenged and effectively sustained because the PTAB found insufficient grounds for instituting a trial on the merits. Independent claims 14, 27, and 40, along with dependent claims 3, 15, 25, and 26, were untested in IPR2020-01390 as they were not included in the petition. The second IPR (IPR2025-00867) resulted in a procedural denial, meaning no claims were assessed on their merits.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Amazon (and its privies) are estopped under § 315(e)(2) from raising invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised against claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-24, 28-39, and 41-52, based on the prior art presented in IPR2020-01390. For Samsung (and its privies) in IPR2025-00867, the estoppel may be narrower due to the procedural nature of the denial, potentially only applying to the specific arguments and art, if any, that caused the procedural deficiency. For other defendants facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds not raised or that could not reasonably have been raised by Amazon against the challenged claims (and all grounds against the unchallenged claims) remain available.

The pattern of PTAB activity shows two attempts by major technology companies (Amazon and Samsung) to challenge the patent, both of which were unsuccessful at the institution stage. This suggests the patent is robust against typical IPR challenges based on the prior art considered. The patent owner, VB Assets LLC, has successfully defended the patent, leading to a hardened position. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being directly involved as a petitioner in these proceedings.

Recommended next steps

Given that no claims of US Patent 7,818,176 have been invalidated, and both filed IPRs were denied institution:

• If you are a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, understand that a new IPR challenge on the claims previously challenged by Amazon (claims 1, 2, 4-13, 16-24, 28-39, and 41-52) using the same or substantially similar prior art would be challenging due to the prior denial on the merits and potential estoppel implications.
• Careful analysis of the institution decision for IPR2020-01390 (Paper 11, dated 2020-12-14) is crucial to understand the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution, especially regarding the interpretation of claim limitations like "mapping a stream of phonemes... to one or more syllables." This provides insights into what arguments were found unpersuasive.
• For claims that were not challenged in IPR2020-01390 (3, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 40), or if new and highly relevant prior art is discovered, an IPR could still be considered. However, the consistent denial of institution signals the patent owner's strong position.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US Patent 7,818,176. The absence of active PTAB activity at this time means there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones (e.g., institution decision deadlines, oral hearings, or Final Written Decision due dates) to track.

Inventors

• Tom Freeman: VoiceBox Technologies, Inc.
• Mike Kennewick: VoiceBox Technologies, Inc.

No unusual patterns were observed regarding the inventors' departure from the original assignee.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is VoiceBox Technologies, Inc. VoiceBox Technologies was primarily in the business of developing and licensing natural language understanding and speech recognition software, particularly for embedded devices and automotive applications. The company was acquired by Nuance Communications, Inc. in 2020.

Assignment timeline

• 2007-04-20 (executed) / recorded 2007-04-20 — Reel 019313/0388

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Tom Freeman and Mike Kennewick
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: KEVIN W. NORRIS, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, 1530 PAGE MILL ROAD, PALO ALTO, CA 94304
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the filing company.

• 2014-04-07 (executed) / recorded 2014-04-10 — Reel 032231/0724

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: KEVIN W. NORRIS, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization/change of name.

• 2017-12-22 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-09 — Reel 041300/0173

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey B. Johnson, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219
  • Context: Grant of a security interest, likely in connection with a loan or financing.

• 2018-04-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-06 — Reel 041935/0733

  • Conveyance: Release By Secured Party
  • Assignor: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey B. Johnson, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of the previously granted security interest.

• 2018-07-25 (executed) / recorded 2018-09-04 — Reel 043232/0832

  • Conveyance: Assignment (NUNC PRO TUNC)
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: KEVIN W. NORRIS, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent assets, likely to a dedicated IP holding entity.

• 2019-04-12 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-15 — Reel 045353/0763

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. GARRETT, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219
  • Context: Grant of a security interest.

• 2019-06-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-06-14 — Reel 045864/0022

  • Conveyance: Release By Secured Party
  • Assignor: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. GARRETT, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of the previously granted security interest.

• 2020-01-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-28 — Reel 051581/0216

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS LLC
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ONE BURLINGTON WOODS DRIVE, BURLINGTON, MA 01803
  • Context: Acquisition of patent assets, likely as part of the broader acquisition of VoiceBox Technologies.

• 2020-09-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-28 — Reel 051581/0214

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: KEVIN W. NORRIS, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Correction to a previous assignment, confirming transfer to VB Assets, LLC. This record indicates VB Assets, LLC is the current assignee, consistent with the Google Patents record.

• 2025-04-08 (executed) / recorded 2025-04-10 — Reel 066779/0064

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: CONTINGENCY CAPITAL FUND A LP
  • Correspondent: DARRIN M. ALLES, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304
  • Context: Grant of a security interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7818176
    2007 : Inventors to VoiceBox Tech Inc
    2010 : Patent issued
    2014 : VoiceBox Tech Inc merged
    2017 : Security interest to ORIX
    2018 : ORIX releases interest
         : Assigned to VB Assets LLC
    2019 : Security interest to Delphi
         : Delphi releases interest
    2020 : Assigned to Nuance Comm Inc
         : Corrective Assignment to VB Assets
    2025 : Security interest to Contingency Cap

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • 2018-07-25 (executed) / recorded 2018-09-04 — Reel 043232/0832. Assignee: VB Assets, LLC. This entity name, "VB Assets, LLC," strongly suggests a shell entity holding assets, with no clear operating business. Furthermore, VB Assets, LLC has been involved in multiple infringement lawsuits, as noted in the litigation summary.
   • 2020-09-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-28 — Reel 051581/0214. This corrective assignment confirms VB Assets, LLC as the assignee after a brief transfer to Nuance Communications, Inc., reinforcing its role as an asset-holding entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. VB Assets, LLC is a known patent asserter. This is evidenced by the multiple active district court cases where VB Assets, LLC is the plaintiff, as detailed in the litigation summary.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • Kevin W. Norris of Foley & Lardner LLP appears on:
     • 2007-04-20 (Reel 019313/0388)
     • 2014-04-07 (Reel 032231/0724)
     • 2018-07-25 (Reel 043232/0832)
     • 2020-09-22 (Reel 051581/0214)
   • Jeffrey B. Johnson of Haynes and Boone, LLP appears on:
     • 2017-12-22 (Reel 041300/0173)
     • 2018-04-05 (Reel 041935/0733)
   • John D. Garrett of Haynes and Boone, LLP appears on:
     • 2019-04-12 (Reel 045353/0763)
     • 2019-06-13 (Reel 045864/0022)
   • The consistent use of specific correspondents, particularly Kevin W. Norris across several assignments involving VoiceBox Technologies and VB Assets, LLC, is a strong signal.

4. Cascading transfers — unclear. While there are several transfers, they are somewhat spread out. The transfers involving security interests and their subsequent releases are part of financing, not necessarily cascading transfers for assertion. The transfer to Nuance and then the corrective assignment back to VB Assets in 2020 is somewhat quick, but not necessarily a "cascading" pattern in the typical NPE sense.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present.

   • The transfer to VB Assets, LLC was executed on 2018-07-25 and recorded on 2018-09-04 (Reel 043232/0832). The first infringement suit against Amazon was filed on 2019-07-26 (1:19-cv-01410), which is within 12 months of the assignment to VB Assets, LLC. This transfer positions the patent with the asserter entity prior to litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The original assignee, VoiceBox Technologies, Inc., was acquired by Nuance Communications, Inc., not dissolved in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While VoiceBox Technologies was acquired by Nuance, and the patent subsequently ended up with VB Assets, LLC, there is no direct evidence in the provided information or patent records to suggest Nuance is using VB Assets, LLC to assert against its competitors. The 2020 assignment to Nuance and subsequent corrective assignment back to VB Assets, LLC (Reel 051581/0216 and 051581/0214) indicate a complex ownership path around the time of Nuance's acquisition of VoiceBox.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee is VB Assets, LLC, which is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the transfer to a shell entity (VB Assets, LLC, Reel 043232/0832), the current assignee being a known patent asserter (VB Assets, LLC, active in multiple litigations), and the recurrence of the same correspondent attorney (Kevin W. Norris of Foley & Lardner LLP) across several key assignments in the chain. Furthermore, the transfer to VB Assets, LLC occurred within a year prior to the first infringement suit, indicating a pre-litigation transfer to enable assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 7,818,176

An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of US Patent 7,818,176 reveals several key patents that disclose elements related to voice recognition, natural language processing, and advertising. The following references are the most relevant to the independent claims of the '176 patent.

Key Prior Art References

1. US Patent 6,499,013 B1: "Interactive user interface using speech recognition and natural language processing"

• Full Citation: US Patent 6,499,013 B1, filed by Jourjine et al. on September 9, 1998, and granted on December 24, 2002. Assigned to One Voice Technologies, Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed September 9, 1998; Published December 24, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a user interface that uses speech recognition and natural language processing to control a computer and its applications. It discloses a system that can receive a natural language utterance, interpret it to understand the user's intent, and execute a command. The focus is on providing a more natural and intuitive way for users to interact with computer software.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1 & 27 (Core Method & System): The '013 patent discloses receiving a natural language utterance and interpreting it to understand a user's request, which aligns with the initial steps of claims 1 and 27. However, it does not explicitly teach the selection and presentation of an advertisement based on the context of that utterance. Its focus is on command and control of applications rather than a voice-based advertising system. Therefore, while it anticipates the natural language processing aspects, it likely does not anticipate the advertising-specific elements, which are central to the '176 patent's claims.

2. US Patent 7,398,209 B2: "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance"

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,398,209 B2, filed by Kennewick et al. on June 3, 2003, and granted on July 8, 2008. Assigned to VoiceBox Technologies, Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed June 3, 2003; Published July 8, 2008.
• Brief Description: This patent, from the same original assignee and involving one of the same inventors as the '176 patent, is cited in the '176 patent's specification as foundational technology. It describes a system that interprets natural language speech to generate responses, using techniques like dynamically updating dictionaries and phrase tables to improve recognition accuracy. It details a conversational system that can understand context and manage dialogue.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1 & 27 (Core Method & System): The '209 patent describes in detail the core conversational language processing technology that the '176 patent builds upon. It teaches receiving an utterance, recognizing words, and interpreting them within a context. However, the claims and specification of the '209 patent are focused on the mechanics of natural language understanding and response generation to fulfill a user's direct request (e.g., for information or to perform a task). It does not specifically claim or describe the step of selecting and presenting a third-party advertisement based on that understanding. The '176 patent's novel contribution is the application of this conversational technology to an advertising model.

3. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0288925 A1: "Method and system for providing targeted advertisements"

• Full Citation: US 2005/0288925 A1, filed by Van et al. on June 28, 2004, and published on December 29, 2005.
• Brief Description: This application describes a system for providing targeted advertisements to users of mobile communication devices. It discloses capturing audio, such as a user's speech or ambient noise, and analyzing it to identify keywords or topics. Based on this analysis, relevant advertisements are selected and delivered to the user's device.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 1 & 27 (Core Method & System): This reference is highly relevant as it directly links audio/speech analysis with the selection of targeted advertising. It teaches capturing a user's speech, identifying content from it, and selecting an ad. However, the claims of the '176 patent are specific about using a conversational language processor to establish a context for the utterance, which implies a deeper level of understanding than simple keyword spotting. The '176 patent also details a more advanced speech recognition process (mapping phonemes to syllables). The novelty in the '176 patent may lie in the sophistication of its natural language understanding and its conversational approach, rather than just keyword-based ad targeting.

4. US Patent 7,620,549 B2: "System and method of supporting adaptive misrecognition in conversational speech"

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,620,549 B2, filed by Kennewick et al. on August 10, 2005, and granted on November 17, 2009. Assigned to VoiceBox Technologies, Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 10, 2005; Published November 17, 2009.
• Brief Description: Also from the same original assignee and cited within the '176 specification, this patent focuses specifically on the problem of speech recognition errors. It describes a system that can detect when an utterance has been misinterpreted and can trigger a reinterpretation based on subsequent user actions or inputs.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claims 14 & 40 (Adaptive Misrecognition Method & System): This patent is the foundational reference for the "adaptive misrecognition" feature claimed in the '176 patent. It explicitly teaches the method of detecting a "predetermined event" (like a user correction) and reinterpreting the original words. The novelty of claims 14 and 40 in the '176 patent is the integration of this adaptive misrecognition technology into the specific application of a voice-based advertising system. While the '549 patent discloses the core error-correction method, the '176 patent claims the use of that method within its broader advertising framework.

Summary of Prior Art Impact

The prior art establishes that the core concepts of speech recognition, natural language processing, and even targeted audio-based advertising existed before the '176 patent's 2007 filing date. However, the novelty of US Patent 7,818,176 appears to be in the specific combination and application of these technologies.

• For the core claims (1 and 27), the invention combines a sophisticated, context-aware conversational language processor with an advertising selection module.
• For the adaptive misrecognition claims (14 and 40), the invention integrates an existing error-correction methodology directly into this voice-driven advertising system.

The patentability of the '176 claims hinges on this unique synthesis of a conversational interface with an advertising delivery mechanism, creating a more seamless and "human-like" interaction for ad presentation than was disclosed in the prior art.

Obviousness Analysis for US Patent 7,818,176 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 7,818,176 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (i.e., prior to the February 6, 2007 filing date), along with the motivation for such combinations. The independent claims of US7818176 are Claims 1, 14, 27, and 40.

Combinations for Claims 1 and 27 (Core Method and System)

Claims 1 and 27 broadly describe a system and method for receiving a natural language utterance, recognizing words and phrases (including mapping phonemes to syllables and generating a preliminary interpretation), interpreting them at a conversational language processor to establish context, and then selecting and presenting an advertisement based on that context.

Combination: US Patent 7,398,209 B2 (Kennewick et al.) in combination with US Patent Application Publication 2005/0288925 A1 (Van et al.).

• US 7,398,209 B2 (Kennewick et al.): This patent, explicitly cited as foundational in the '176 patent, comprehensively teaches a system and method for responding to natural language speech utterances. It details receiving utterances, recognizing words and phrases, and interpreting them using a conversational language processor that establishes context and manages dialogue to fulfill user requests. It also describes the underlying speech recognition mechanics, including dynamically updated dictionaries and phrase tables, which are pertinent to the recognition steps in claims 1 and 27. However, the '209 patent focuses on executing commands or retrieving information as a direct response to a user's request, not on selecting and presenting advertisements.
• US 2005/0288925 A1 (Van et al.): This prior art specifically addresses providing targeted advertisements based on audio input. It discloses capturing user speech, analyzing it to identify keywords or topics, and then selecting and delivering relevant advertisements. While its approach to speech analysis might be less sophisticated than the "conversational language processor" of the '209 patent (potentially relying more on keyword spotting), it clearly teaches the concept of associating speech input with advertisement selection and presentation.

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA in the field of voice user interfaces and advertising, seeking to improve the relevance and effectiveness of voice-based advertising, would have been motivated to combine the sophisticated natural language understanding and contextual awareness of the system described in US 7,398,209 with the known concept of speech-based advertisement targeting taught by US 2005/0288925.

The motivation is to leverage the robust conversational capabilities of US 7,398,209 (which allows for a deeper interpretation of user intent and context beyond simple keywords) to enhance the targeting and relevance of advertisements as broadly disclosed in US 2005/0288925. A system that can understand the context of a user's request (as described in '209) rather than just isolated keywords (as might be inferred from '925) would predictably lead to more accurate and valuable advertisement selections. This would be a predictable result of combining known elements to improve a known function (ad targeting) by applying a more advanced form of analysis (conversational NLP).

Therefore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to integrate an advertisement selection and presentation module (as taught by Van et al.) into the conversational language processing system of Kennewick et al. to provide contextually relevant advertisements in response to natural language utterances.

Combinations for Claims 14 and 40 (Adaptive Misrecognition Method and System)

Claims 14 and 40 extend the core method and system by adding an "adaptive misrecognition" capability. This involves detecting when the conversational language processor incorrectly interpreted words or phrases based on a predetermined event (e.g., subsequent input proximate in time, stopping/overriding a request, or repeating an utterance) and subsequently reinterpreting the words or phrases.

Combination: The combination described for Claims 1 and 27 (US 7,398,209 B2 + US 2005/0288925 A1) in further combination with US Patent 7,620,549 B2 (Kennewick et al.).

• US 7,620,549 B2 (Kennewick et al.): This patent, also from the same original assignee and inventors as the '176 patent, specifically teaches a "System and method of supporting adaptive misrecognition in conversational speech". It details the detection of predetermined events (such as subsequent inputs or repetitions) that indicate a prior misinterpretation, and the subsequent reinterpretation of the user's utterance. This patent directly discloses the adaptive misrecognition features recited in claims 14 and 40.

Motivation for Combination:
Given the established combination for claims 1 and 27 (i.e., a conversational voice system that also serves advertisements), a PHOSITA would have a clear motivation to incorporate known solutions for improving the accuracy and robustness of such a system. Speech recognition and natural language processing systems are inherently prone to errors. US 7,620,549 B2 directly addresses this known problem by providing a mechanism for adaptive misrecognition.

It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to integrate the adaptive misrecognition techniques from US 7,620,549 B2 into the voice-based advertising system formed by combining US 7,398,209 B2 and US 2005/0288925 A1. The motivation would be to enhance the user experience and the accuracy of the system by correcting misinterpretations, thereby ensuring that both the user's requested action is correctly performed and that the selected advertisements are indeed relevant to the user's actual intent. This is the application of a known technique (adaptive misrecognition) to a known system (a voice-based advertising system) to achieve a predictable improvement (increased accuracy of interpretation and ad selection).