Prior art

U.S. Patent 9263039, titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance," was granted on February 16, 2016, from an application filed on September 29, 2014. The priority date for this patent is August 5, 2005. This patent describes systems and methods for handling natural language speech and non-speech communications, transcribing them into text, and executing questions or commands. It leverages context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user-specific profile data to create a natural environment for users interacting with multiple domains.

To identify the most relevant prior art, we would typically examine the "References Cited" section of US9263039B2. Since I do not have direct access to that specific section of the patent document, I will provide a general approach to analyzing prior art and which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

For a comprehensive analysis, one would typically look for prior art that discloses:

• Speech and non-speech communication input: Any system that receives both spoken utterances and textual messages.
• Natural language processing: Prior systems that interpret natural language queries or commands, especially those handling imperfect information (incomplete thoughts, slang, etc.).
• Context awareness: Systems that utilize context, user profiles, or session history to better understand queries and formulate responses.
• Multi-modal interaction: Systems that integrate speech and non-speech interfaces while maintaining context synchronization.
• Agent-based architecture: Systems employing "agents" or modules to process queries, access information, and generate responses.
• Probabilistic or fuzzy logic: Systems that use these methods for dealing with ambiguity, conflicting information, or subjective queries.
• Dynamic updates and customization: Systems allowing for updates to domain knowledge, user profiles, or even the creation of new functionalities (e.g., "data managers").
• Control of external devices: Systems that enable local or remote control of devices through natural language commands.

General Approach to Prior Art Analysis (assuming hypothetical prior art references):

When analyzing a prior art reference for potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the core principle is that every element of a claim must be disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

Let's consider a hypothetical example based on the description of US9263039B2:

Hypothetical Prior Art Reference:

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 7,000,000, "Interactive Voice Response System with Contextual Understanding"
• Publication/Filing Date: (e.g., Published: Jan 1, 2004; Filed: Jan 1, 2002) (This date would be before the priority date of US9263039B2, which is August 5, 2005).
• Brief Description: This patent describes an interactive voice response (IVR) system that allows users to speak natural language commands to navigate menus and retrieve information. It employs a rudimentary form of contextual understanding based on the preceding turns in the conversation to disambiguate user requests. User preferences are stored in a basic profile to personalize responses.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s) from US9263039B2:
  • Claim 1 (Preamble): "A system for responding to natural language speech utterance..."
    • Anticipation rationale: If US7,000,000 describes a system that responds to natural language speech utterances, the preamble of Claim 1 could potentially be anticipated.
  • Claim 1 (Element related to receiving speech): "...a speech unit interface device that receives utterances, including spoken natural language queries, commands and/or other utterances from a user..."
    • Anticipation rationale: The hypothetical IVR system explicitly states it receives spoken natural language commands.
  • Claim 1 (Element related to context): "...This environment makes maximum use of context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user specific profile data..."
    • Anticipation rationale: The hypothetical states "contextual understanding based on the preceding turns" and "User preferences are stored in a basic profile," which could potentially anticipate aspects of context and user profile utilization.

Important Note: Without the actual list of cited prior art from US9263039B2 and the full text of those references, this analysis remains a general illustration. A thorough prior art analysis requires meticulously comparing each element of every claim against the disclosures of each cited reference.