Prior art — US Patent 8886536

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 8,886,536

As of May 5, 2026, the following analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 8,886,536 ('536 patent). This analysis examines the references cited by the USPTO examiner and evaluates their potential impact on the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation).

The '536 patent describes a system that uses a natural language conversation to deliver targeted promotional content. Key aspects of the invention include interpreting a user's spoken utterance in the context of a prior utterance, using different "domain agents" to determine the best interpretation, and then selecting a relevant advertisement. The prior art cited against these claims generally involves voice-based search, targeted advertising, and dialogue management systems.

Here are the most relevant prior art references:

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,725,493 B1 ("Busay")

Full Citation: US 7,725,493 B1, "Voice-based search with advertising"
Assignee: Google Inc.
Publication Date: May 25, 2010 (Filed: July 19, 2007)
Brief Description: Busay discloses a system for providing advertisements in response to a voice-based search query. A user speaks a query, the system converts it to text, performs a search, and returns search results along with targeted advertisements. The selection of ads can be based on the content of the query and other factors like user location or bidding prices from advertisers. The system can also provide audible advertisements.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: Busay appears most relevant to the general concept of serving ads based on voice input. It teaches receiving a natural language utterance (a search query), processing it, and determining promotional content (advertisements) based on that utterance.
- Claim 1 & 32: Busay discloses receiving a natural language utterance and presenting promotional content based on an interpretation of that utterance. However, it may not explicitly describe the two-step conversational context ("second natural language utterance relating to the first") or the use of competing "domain agents" to select a final interpretation. The '536 patent's claims are specific about using the context of a first utterance to determine the domain for interpreting a second utterance and using a competitive process between domain agents. Busay's focus is more on a single query-response interaction. Therefore, while highly relevant, Busay likely does not fully anticipate these claims on its own.
- Claim 37: Busay does not appear to describe a method for resolving ambiguous requests by presenting promotional content and monitoring user interaction with it, which is the core novelty of this claim.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0288929 A1 ("Pell")

Full Citation: US 2005/0288929 A1, "Dynamically generating mixed-initiative dialogs for presenting and exploring complex data"
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
Publication Date: December 29, 2005 (Filed: June 28, 2004)
Brief Description: Pell describes a dialogue management system that can engage in a mixed-initiative conversation with a user to explore complex information. The system can ask clarifying questions and interpret user responses within the context of the ongoing dialogue. It uses a dialogue manager to track context and determine appropriate system responses to guide the conversation.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: Pell is relevant for its focus on maintaining conversational context and managing dialogue flow.
- Claim 1 & 32: Pell teaches maintaining context across multiple utterances in a dialogue (a "second ... utterance relating to the first"). This is a key element of claim 1. However, Pell's primary focus is on exploring data, not specifically on selecting and presenting promotional content. The claims of the '536 patent require determining and presenting "promotional content" as a direct output. A combination of Pell (for conversational context) and another reference (for advertising) would likely be needed to challenge these claims under an obviousness argument (35 U.S.C. § 103), but it may not directly anticipate them.
- Claim 33: Pell's system can adapt its understanding based on subsequent user input, which is conceptually similar to the "reinterpretation" described in claim 33. It discloses adjusting the dialogue strategy based on new user utterances. However, the claim's specific application of this reinterpretation to select or change promotional content is likely not taught by Pell.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0022008 A1 ("Plachta et al.")

Full Citation: US 2007/0022008 A1, "Voice-based advertising"
Assignee: General Motors Corp., Onstar Corp.
Publication Date: January 25, 2007 (Filed: July 22, 2005)
Brief Description: Plachta discloses a system for delivering targeted, voice-based advertisements to users in a vehicle. The system can select ads based on the vehicle's location, the user's destination (from a navigation system), or the content of a user's request (e.g., for a point of interest). It describes an interactive system where a user can respond to an ad with a voice command, for example, to be connected via phone to the advertised business.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is strong on the interactive and targeted nature of voice advertising, particularly in a hands-free context.
- Claim 1 & 32: Plachta discloses receiving a natural language utterance (e.g., a request for a nearby restaurant), interpreting it, and presenting promotional content (an ad for a specific restaurant) based on that interpretation. Like Busay, it may lack the specific two-utterance conversational context and the competitive domain agent architecture required by the claims. The interaction described is more of a single-turn request and targeted response.
- Claim 16 & its dependents (17-22): Plachta provides strong support for identifying requests and performing actions. For instance, it describes identifying a request for a navigation route (claim 19) or initiating a call (claim 18) and determining promotional content based on that activity.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109453 A1 ("Rorex et al.")

Full Citation: US 2008/0109453 A1, "System and method for targeting advertising based on conceptual correlations"
Assignee: Yahoo! Inc.
Publication Date: May 8, 2008 (Filed: November 6, 2006)
Brief Description: Rorex describes a method for targeting advertisements by identifying concepts within a user's query or viewed content, rather than just keywords. The system builds a "conceptual profile" for the user based on their activities and selects ads that are conceptually related to the user's current context or long-term interests.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: Rorex is relevant for its sophisticated approach to understanding user intent for the purpose of ad selection, moving beyond simple keyword matching.
- Claim 1 & 32: Rorex teaches a deep "interpretation" of a user's request to determine promotional content. However, it is primarily focused on text-based queries and web content, not necessarily voice utterances in a conversational flow. Furthermore, it does not describe the competitive domain agent architecture.
- Claim 30 & 31: Rorex strongly supports the elements of obtaining user profile information based on prior interactions and identifying categories of items to select a promotional item. This reference teaches building user profiles based on behavior to better target ads, which aligns well with the limitations of these dependent claims.

Summary of Prior Art Impact

While several references disclose core components of the '536 patent, such as voice-based ad targeting (Busay, Plachta) and conversational context management (Pell), none appear to single-handedly anticipate the independent claims. The novelty of the '536 patent, as defined in the claims, seems to reside in the specific combination of these features:

Conversational Context: Using a first utterance to establish a domain for interpreting a second, related utterance.
Competitive Interpretation: Employing multiple, competing domain agents to arrive at a final interpretation of the user's speech.
Ambiguity Resolution: Proactively using promotional content as a tool to clarify a user's ambiguous request and interpreting the subsequent interaction.

A potential challenge to the validity of the '536 patent would more likely arise from an obviousness argument under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining teachings from a conversational system like Pell with a voice-advertising system like Busay or Plachta. However, based on the cited references alone, direct anticipation under § 102 appears unlikely for the independent claims. Dependent claims, particularly those related to user profiling (30, 31) and performing specific actions (17-22), face stronger challenges from references like Rorex and Plachta, respectively.