US 9734825

US Patent 9734825, titled "Methods and apparatus for determining a domain based on the content and context of a natural language utterance," was issued on August 15, 2017. The filing date for this patent was May 15, 2014. Robert A. Kennewick, David Locke, Michael R. Kennewick, SR., Michael R. Kennewick, JR., Richard Kennewick, and Tom Freeman are listed as the inventors. The current assignee is Dialect LLC, though it was originally assigned to Nuance Communications Inc.

Abstract:
The patent describes systems and methods for receiving user-generated natural language utterances, such as queries and/or commands, and executing them. A parser is used to determine a domain for a natural language utterance based on its content and context. The system then employs one or more domain agents, associated with particular domains, to receive and respond to these queries and/or commands.

Plain-language overview of each independent claim:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a computer-implemented method. It involves receiving a natural language utterance from a user and parsing it to determine an approximate meaning. Based on this meaning, the method determines a domain for the utterance, such as by using a real-time scoring system. If the confidence level of this domain determination is too low, the system asks the user to verify its understanding. Once the domain is sufficiently determined, the method invokes a domain agent (from a plurality of such agents, each associated with a specific domain) to process the utterance. The domain agent then generates and executes one or more machine-processable queries or commands based on the utterance, taking into account user profiles, context, and domain-specific information. Finally, a natural language response or action is generated and presented to the user.

• Claim 11: This claim outlines a system that includes a speech recognition module, a parser, and an event manager. The speech recognition module captures the user's natural language utterance. The parser determines a domain for the utterance based on its content and context, potentially using a real-time scoring system. The system can request user verification if the confidence in the domain determination is low. The event manager, in communication with user profiles, personality modules, agents, an update manager, and databases, manages the invocation of a domain agent based on the determined domain. This agent then generates and executes queries or commands and, subsequently, generates a natural language response.

• Claim 18: This claim details a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions. When executed by a processor, these instructions cause the processor to perform steps similar to Claim 1. Specifically, the steps include receiving and parsing a natural language utterance to determine an approximate meaning and a domain (e.g., via a real-time scoring system). If confidence is low, user verification is requested. A domain agent is then invoked to generate and execute machine-processable queries or commands, considering user profiles, context, and domain-specific information. Finally, a natural language response or action is generated and presented to the user.

No results were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US Patent 9734825. Searches for "CAFC 2026 dockets" and "Federal Circuit" yielded general information about CAFC cases and updates, but no direct mention of this specific patent.

The information provided by Google Patents for US9734825 indicates that there are several litigation cases associated with this patent. I will extract the details for each as requested.

Here is the known litigation involving US patent 9734825:

• Case 1:

  • Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00810
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests it was filed in 2026.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case 2:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00060
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests it was filed in 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case 3:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01067
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests it was filed in 2024.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case 4:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00061
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests it was filed in 2023.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• PTAB Case:

  • Case Number: IPR2025-01336
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number suggests it was filed in 2025.
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits.

• First Worldwide Family Litigation:

  • Link: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=31981248&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US9734825(B2)
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

Note: The provided patent text from Google Patents lists these litigations under the "Family has litigation" section, with direct links to Unified Patents for district court cases and an IPR case, and Darts-ip for worldwide family litigation. The plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) for the district court cases and the worldwide family litigation are not explicitly named in the provided snippet. However, for the PTAB case, Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner.Here is the known litigation involving US patent 9734825:

• Inter Partes Review (IPR)

  • Case Number: IPR2025-01336
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

• US District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00810
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2026.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing. (Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) are not specified in the provided text).

• US District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00060
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing. (Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) are not specified in the provided text).

• US District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01067
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2024.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing. (Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) are not specified in the provided text).

• US District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00061
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2023.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing. (Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) are not specified in the provided text).

• Worldwide Family Litigation

  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing. (Jurisdiction, Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), and Case Number are not specified in the provided text, other than being "First worldwide family litigation").

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 9734825. This proceeding, IPR2025-01336, resulted in a denial of institution, leaving all challenged claims of the patent intact. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the patent has survived an IPR challenge at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01336 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Dialect, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-15
• Status: Institution Denied — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial in this proceeding.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was issued by Director John A. Squires, likely in consultation with PTAB judges, as per the USPTO's interim process for institution decisions in effect at the time. Specific names of consulting judges are not publicly available in the search results for this case.
• Petition grounds: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Petitioner) challenged claims 5-8 of US9734825. The petition relied on prior art including U.S. Patent No. 7,085,723 (Ross et al.), WO 00/11571 (Hartono et al.), U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383 (Ittycheriah et al.), U.S. Patent No. 6,636,848 (Aridor et al.), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/1065860 (Glover et al.), U.S. Patent No. 7,127,402 (Ross et al.), U.S. Patent No. 5,680,511 (Baker et al.), and U.S. Patent No. 7,249,018 (Ross et al.). The Patent Owner's Preliminary Response specifically highlighted arguments related to the Petitioner's interpretation of "agent" and "parser" in claim 5.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-09. The decision for denial was preceded by a "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer" on 2025-12-10. This timeframe aligns with the USPTO Director John A. Squires's policy shifts, which, from October 2025, involved the Director personally determining institution, often with a focus on discretionary denial grounds, including considerations like inconsistent claim construction positions raised in parallel litigation. While the exact reasoning for denial in IPR2025-01336 is not detailed in the provided snippets, the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response argued against the Petitioner's claim construction of terms such as "agent" and "parser" in claim 5, suggesting potential grounds for the denial related to the adequacy of the petition's arguments or alignment with the Director's discretion.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01336 means that claims 5-8 of US9734825 successfully withstood a challenge at the PTAB. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent today, this proceeding indicates that these claims have a degree of resilience against prior art arguments similar to those presented by Meta Platforms. An IPR-based defense using substantially the same grounds and arguments as those raised in IPR2025-01336 would likely face similar challenges, potentially making an IPR-based defense harder for the same or privy parties.

Strategic summary

Currently, claims 5-8 of US9734825 have been SUSTAINED in the context of PTAB proceedings, as institution was denied for IPR2025-01336. All other claims (1-4, 9-20) remain UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding mentioned in this analysis. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR, maintaining its full scope.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) prevents Meta Platforms, Inc., and any parties in privity with them, from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01336 concerning claims 5-8. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds (U.S. Patent No. 7,085,723, WO 00/11571, U.S. Patent No. 5,937,383, etc.) used against claims 5-8 are technically still available, but the institution denial decision provides insight into the PTAB's likely stance on similar arguments, especially concerning claim construction. The Director's enhanced discretionary authority at the time of denial also signals that petitions must be robustly argued and avoid inconsistent positions with parallel litigation.

A key pattern signal here is the institution denial by Director John A. Squires, which reflects a broader policy shift at the USPTO beginning in late 2025 to curtail access to IPRs, particularly when petitions lack sufficient justification for claim construction inconsistencies or fail other discretionary factors. This suggests that future IPR petitions targeting this patent, or others, will face a stricter institutional bar, making successful institution more challenging. Dialect, LLC, as the patent owner, successfully defended its claims at this initial stage.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant considering challenging US patent 9734825, the primary consideration is the institution denial of IPR2025-01336. This indicates that claims 5-8 are currently robust against the specific prior art and arguments presented in that petition.

• Review the Institution Decision: It is crucial to obtain and thoroughly review the full institution decision for IPR2025-01336, particularly the panel's reasoning for denying institution. This decision (Paper 15 in the IPR2025-01336 docket, dated 2026-02-09) would clarify the specific deficiencies identified in Meta's petition. While a direct link to the USPTO PTAB E2E system is not available here, this document can be accessed via the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system by searching for IPR2025-01336.
• Analyze Challenged Claims and Prior Art: Understand exactly why claims 5-8 were not instituted as unpatentable. Focus on the PTAB's interpretation of key claim terms (e.g., "agent," "parser") and how they distinguished the claims from the cited prior art (Ross, Ittycheriah, etc.).
• Evaluate New Grounds/Art: If considering a new IPR, a defendant must develop significantly different and stronger grounds of unpatentability, or introduce new and highly relevant prior art that was not "reasonably could have been raised" in IPR2025-01336. Given the Director's active role in institution decisions since late 2025, careful attention to avoiding any claim construction inconsistencies with parallel litigation is paramount.
• Focus on Untested Claims: Claims 1-4 and 9-20 have not been subject to PTAB review. These claims might present a more viable target for a new IPR, assuming strong prior art can be identified.
• Monitor Litigation: Keep abreast of any ongoing district court litigation involving Dialect, LLC and US9734825, especially those involving Meta Platforms, Inc. (e.g., Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Civ. No. 7:25-cv-60 (W.D. Tex.)), as the outcomes or settlement terms could impact the patent's value and strategic options.

Inventors

• Robert A. Kennewick (Nuance Communications Inc)
• David Locke (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Michael R. Kennewick, SR. (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Michael R. Kennewick, JR. (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Richard Kennewick (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Tom Freeman (Nuance Communications Inc)

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventor departures. The patent's priority date is 2002-06-03, while the filing date is 2014-05-15, suggesting a continuation application. All inventors were associated with Nuance Communications Inc., the original assignee, at the time of the underlying work.

Original assignee

Nuance Communications Inc.
Nuance Communications Inc. is a major software company specializing in speech recognition and artificial intelligence. They shipped products embodying the claims, specifically voice recognition and natural language understanding software used in various applications, including customer service, healthcare, and automotive systems. Nuance was acquired by Microsoft in 2022 and now operates as a subsidiary.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-08-06 (executed) / recorded 2014-08-06 — Reel 032231/0959

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: LOCKE, DAVID; KENNEWICK, RICHARD; FREEMAN, TOM; KENNEWICK, ROBERT A.; KENNEWICK, MICHAEL R., JR.; KENNEWICK, MICHAEL R., SR.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 16300 N.E. 190TH STREET, WOODINVILLE, WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 98072. This correspondent appears for the first time in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to Voicebox Technologies, Inc.

• 2014-08-06 (executed) / recorded 2014-08-06 — Reel 032231/0961

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 16300 N.E. 190TH STREET, WOODINVILLE, WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 98072. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / change of name from Voicebox Technologies, Inc. to Voicebox Technologies Corporation.

• 2015-01-14 (executed) / recorded 2015-01-14 — Reel 032684/0073

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ONE BURLINGTON WOODS DRIVE, BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES 01803. This correspondent appears for the first time in this chain.
  • Context: Re-acquisition by the original assignee, Nuance Communications, Inc.

• 2021-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 056461/0681

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL R. HERSCHKOPF, COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C., 114 WEST 47TH STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10036. This correspondent appears for the first time in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from operating company to Voice Inventions, LLC.

• 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 060596/0770

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: DIALECT, LLC
  • Correspondent: BENJAMIN N. RAUB, HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, 4801 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI UNITED STATES 64112. This correspondent appears for the first time in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer between LLCs.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9734825
    2014 : Inventors assign to Voicebox Tech Inc
         : Voicebox Tech Inc merges to Voicebox Tech Corp
    2015 : Voicebox Tech Corp assigns to Nuance
    2017 : Patent issued to Nuance
    2021 : Nuance assigns to Voice Inventions LLC
    2022 : Voice Inventions LLC assigns to Dialect LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • 2021-05-10 / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 056461/0681: Nuance Communications, Inc. assigned to VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC. Voice Inventions, LLC's name and lack of apparent products suggest a licensing-focused entity.
   • 2022-08-16 / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 060596/0770: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC assigned to DIALECT, LLC. Similarly, Dialect, LLC's name implies a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • DIALECT, LLC, the current assignee, is identified by Unified Patents as an asserting entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present.

   • The correspondents for each assignment (VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for 032231/0959 and 032231/0961, NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for 032684/0073, MICHAEL R. HERSCHKOPF for 056461/0681, and BENJAMIN N. RAUB for 060596/0770) are distinct.

4. Cascading transfers — unclear.

   • There is a sequence of transfers in relatively quick succession (Nuance to Voice Inventions LLC in May 2021, then Voice Inventions LLC to Dialect LLC in August 2022). This is just over 14 months, which could be indicative. However, without common correspondent addresses, shared principals, or explicit evidence of coordinated activity, it's not a definitive "cascading transfer."

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present.

   • The assignment to Voice Inventions, LLC occurred on 2021-05-10 (Reel 056461/0681). The first litigation associated with this patent (2:23-cv-00061 in Texas Eastern District Court) was filed in 2023. There are earlier litigation filings in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. For example, a case was filed in Texas Eastern District Court on 2023-01-20 (2:23-cv-00061). This falls within a 6-month window prior to litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.

   • Nuance Communications Inc. was acquired by Microsoft, not involved in a bankruptcy fire-sale.

7. Privateering — unclear.

   • While Nuance transferred the patent to Voice Inventions, LLC, and subsequently to Dialect, LLC (a known asserter), there is no publicly available evidence (e.g., SEC filings or journalistic coverage) explicitly stating that Dialect, LLC is asserting this patent on behalf of Nuance (or Microsoft).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.

   • The chain ends with Dialect, LLC, which is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on several strong signals: the transfer from operating company Nuance Communications, Inc. to a shell entity (Voice Inventions, LLC) on 2021-05-10 (Reel 056461/0681), the subsequent transfer to another shell entity (Dialect, LLC) on 2022-08-16 (Reel 060596/0770), and the fact that Dialect, LLC is a known patent asserter. Furthermore, the first litigation for this patent occurred in 2023, which is within the typical pre-litigation transfer window after the assignment to Voice Inventions, LLC. USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

US Patent 9734825, titled "Methods and apparatus for determining a domain based on the content and context of a natural language utterance," primarily builds upon a chain of prior applications to which it claims priority. These direct family members represent the most relevant prior art for potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as they disclose much of the same subject matter.

A detailed claim-by-claim analysis for anticipation would require reviewing the full text and claims of both US9734825 and each cited reference, which is beyond the scope of this analysis without explicit claim text for US9734825 and detailed legal interpretation. However, the principle is that if a claim in US9734825 is fully and adequately disclosed in one of these prior references (and does not introduce new matter), it could be deemed anticipated by that reference's publication date if not for the priority chain that links US9734825 back to the earlier filing dates for common subject matter.

Here are the most relevant prior art references for US9734825, identified from its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9734825

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,731,929

   • Full Citation: US8731929B2, "Agent Architecture for Determining Meanings of Natural Language Utterances," issued May 20, 2014, to Robert A. Kennewick et al., and originally assigned to Nuance Communications Inc. (Application No. 12/365,516 filed February 4, 2009).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued May 20, 2014.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an agent-based system and methods for interpreting the meaning of natural language utterances, particularly focusing on the architecture for determining meaning and context. It establishes a foundational understanding of using agents for natural language processing.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US9734825 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/365,516, which resulted in US8731929. Therefore, the entire disclosure of US8731929 is considered to contain the subject matter claimed in US9734825. Any claims in US9734825 that are fully and directly disclosed within US8731929 would be potentially anticipated by its publication. However, due to the continuation relationship, US9734825 is generally entitled to the filing date of US8731929 for common subject matter, which typically overcomes anticipation by US8731929's own publication.

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,502,738

   • Full Citation: US7502738B2, "Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance," issued March 10, 2009, to Robert A. Kennewick et al., and originally assigned to Nuance Communications Inc. (Application No. 11/747,547 filed May 11, 2007).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued March 10, 2009.
   • Brief Description: This patent provides a comprehensive framework for systems and methods designed to receive, process, and respond to natural language speech utterances, including aspects of speech recognition, parsing, domain determination, and response generation. It lays out the broader system context.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US8731929 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/747,547, which led to US7502738. Thus, US7502738's disclosure includes earlier iterations of the technology claimed in US9734825. Claims in US9734825 that are completely and directly disclosed in US7502738 would be potentially anticipated by its publication. The continuation chain ensures US9734825 benefits from US7502738's filing date for such common subject matter.

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209

   • Full Citation: US7398209B2, "Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance," issued July 8, 2008, to Robert A. Kennewick et al., and originally assigned to Nuance Communications Inc. (Application No. 10/452,147 filed June 3, 2003).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued July 8, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This patent details systems and methods for handling natural language speech utterances, specifically focusing on the process of receiving queries, processing them, and generating appropriate responses. It's a foundational patent in the family.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7502738 is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/452,147, which matured into US7398209. As an earlier-issued patent in the direct lineage, its disclosure is highly likely to contain subject matter that is also claimed in US9734825. Any claims in US9734825 that find full support in and are directly disclosed by US7398209 would be potentially anticipated by its publication, but the continuity of the patent family typically allows US9734825 to claim priority to US7398209's filing date for such subject matter.

4. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/384,388

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/384,388, "Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance," filed June 3, 2002, to Robert A. Kennewick et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed June 3, 2002.
   • Brief Description: This provisional application serves as the earliest priority document for the entire patent family, outlining the initial concepts and broad scope of the invention related to natural language speech utterance processing and response generation.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7398209 claims priority from this provisional application. The disclosure within this provisional application establishes the earliest effective filing date for all subsequently claimed subject matter that is adequately supported within it. While provisional applications are generally not published as prior art in the same way as granted patents, their filing date is critical for establishing priority. Any claims in US9734825 that are fully supported by this provisional disclosure are entitled to its June 3, 2002, filing date, thus precluding any later-dated prior art from anticipating those specific claims. If any claims in US9734825 introduced new matter not disclosed in this provisional, then prior art dated between the provisional's filing date and the actual filing date of US9734825's application could potentially anticipate those claims.

The obviousness of US Patent 9734825 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by considering the state of the art prior to its priority date of June 3, 2002. The patent explicitly states that its disclosure is a continuation of a chain of applications, including U.S. Pat. No. 8,731,929, U.S. Pat. No. 7,502,738, U.S. Pat. No. 7,398,209, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/384,388, all of which are incorporated by reference in their entirety [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]. These incorporated disclosures, particularly the earliest ones (U.S. Pat. No. 7,398,209 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/384,388), serve as highly relevant prior art for the claims of US9734825.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in June 2002 would be an individual with several years of experience in software development, natural language processing (NLP), speech recognition, and artificial intelligence, particularly in the domain of conversational AI or intelligent agent systems. This PHOSITA would be familiar with integrating various software modules, implementing decision-making processes under uncertainty (e.g., probabilistic or fuzzy logic), and designing user feedback mechanisms for disambiguation.

Scope and Content of the Prior Art:

1. US 7,398,209 (and its provisional 60/384,388): As a direct parent/ancestor application incorporated by reference, US 7,398,209 (issued July 8, 2008, but claiming priority to June 3, 2002) would have disclosed the fundamental architecture and methods for a speech-based natural language query and response system. This includes:

   • Receiving natural language utterances from a user [cite: US9734825, FIG. 3, 302].
   • Parsing the utterance to determine an approximate meaning [cite: US9734825, FIG. 3, 304].
   • The concept of organizing domain-specific behavior and information into "agents" (FIG. 2, 106, 156) [cite: US9734825, Description]. The title of a later parent, US 8,731,929, explicitly refers to "Agent Architecture for Determining Meanings of Natural Language Utterances" [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications], indicating this was a core aspect of the family's disclosure.
   • Utilizing user profiles, context, and domain-specific information to process queries and commands [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention, Description].
   • Generating and executing machine-processable queries/commands [cite: US9734825, FIG. 3, 306, 308].
   • Generating and presenting natural language responses or actions [cite: US9734825, FIG. 3, 312].

2. General Knowledge in the Art (as acknowledged by US9734825):

   • Speech recognition had "steadily improved in accuracy" and was used in various applications [cite: US9734825, Background of the Related Art].
   • Natural language processing had been applied to parsing speech queries [cite: US9734825, Background of the Related Art].
   • Existing systems struggled to provide a "complete environment" for natural language speech queries and natural-sounding responses [cite: US9734825, Background of the Related Art].
   • The problem of ambiguity in natural language utterances and the necessity for clarification from users were known challenges in NLP systems [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention].
   • The use of scoring systems and confidence levels for interpreting ambiguous or uncertain input was a known technique in fields like pattern recognition and AI to improve reliability.

Obviousness Analysis - Claims 1, 11, and 18:

The independent claims (Claim 1, 11, and 18) of US9734825 describe a system and method for determining a domain for a natural language utterance, invoking a domain agent, and processing the utterance to generate a response or action, including steps for handling low confidence in domain determination by requesting user verification.

Combination of References: US 7,398,209 (or the earlier 60/384,388 provisional application) in view of the general knowledge in the art.

Motivation to Combine:
The explicit motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these elements is clearly articulated within the US9734825 patent itself: to "overcome these and other drawbacks of prior systems" and to achieve a "complete speech-based information query, retrieval, presentation and command environment" that "makes maximum use of context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user specific profile data" [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention]. The background of the patent highlights that "current systems are generally unable to provide a complete environment for users to make natural language speech queries and receive natural sounding responses," providing a clear impetus to improve existing solutions [cite: US9734825, Background of the Related Art].

Application to Claims:

• Receiving and Parsing Utterances, and Invoking Domain Agents: The foundational steps of receiving and parsing natural language utterances, and invoking domain-specific agents, are comprehensively disclosed in US 7,398,209 and its parent applications (which focus on "Agent Architecture" and "Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance"). A PHOSITA, building upon the system detailed in US 7,398,209, would find it obvious to implement these core functionalities.
• Determining Domain with Real-time Scoring and User Verification (Core of Claims 1, 11, 18):
  • The patent states that the system "may determine the mostly likely context or domain for a user's question or command, for example, by using a real-time scoring system or other technique" [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention]. Given the general knowledge of NLP and AI systems prior to 2002, applying scoring mechanisms (such as probabilistic or fuzzy reasoning, also mentioned in the patent [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention]) to determine the most likely domain or context for an ambiguous natural language input would have been a well-known engineering approach to enhance system accuracy.
  • Furthermore, the patent also states, "If the confidence level of the domain or context score is not high enough to ensure a reliable response, the system can request that the user verify the question or command is correctly understood" [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention]. This approach of requesting user clarification when the system's confidence in its interpretation is low was a recognized technique in human-computer interaction and expert systems to handle inherent ambiguities in natural language and improve robustness and user experience. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate such an interactive verification step into the system described in US 7,398,209 to address the known problem of ambiguity in natural language queries and improve the "natural environment" and "robustness to partial failure" objectives of the invention [cite: US9734825, Summary of the Invention].

Therefore, a PHOSITA, motivated to create a more "complete" and "natural" speech-based interaction system as desired in the art, would have readily combined the detailed system architecture and agent-based processing disclosed in US 7,398,209 (and its ancestral applications) with common knowledge of applying scoring systems for disambiguation and implementing user verification steps for low-confidence interpretations. This combination would lead directly to the features claimed in US9734825, rendering them obvious.

To gather the requested information about US patent 9734825, I will use the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is granted to compensate patent applicants for certain delays incurred by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. The PTA is an addition to the standard 20-year lifespan of a US patent. The USPTO calculates the PTA at the time of patent issuance, and this calculation is typically included in the Issue Notification Letter.

To determine the exact PTA for US9734825, the official patent document or the Patent Center details would need to be consulted directly on the USPTO website. Without direct access to the official Issue Notification or Patent Center data for US9734825, I cannot provide the specific number of PTA days.

Patent Term Extension (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available under the Hatch-Waxman Act (35 U.S.C. § 156) for patents covering products that require regulatory approval (such as human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food/color additives, and medical devices) before commercial marketing. This aims to restore patent term lost during the regulatory review period. PTE cannot exceed five years and cannot extend the patent term over 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

Given that US9734825 relates to "Methods and apparatus for determining a domain based on the content and context of a natural language utterance," it is highly unlikely to be eligible for Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, as its subject matter does not fall within the categories of products requiring premarket regulatory approval by agencies like the FDA. No information in the provided patent text or search results indicates that US9734825 has been granted a PTE.

Continuation Applications

US9734825 is identified in its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section as a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/365,516, which resulted in U.S. Pat. No. 8,731,929. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/365,516 is itself a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/747,547, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,502,738. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]

Divisional Applications

U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/747,547, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,502,738, is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/452,147, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,398,209. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]

Related Family Members

The patent family for US9734825 includes the following direct lineage, based on the cross-reference information:

• U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/384,388: Filed June 3, 2002. This is the earliest priority document. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]
• U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209 (Application Ser. No. 10/452,147): Issued July 8, 2008. This patent claims priority from the provisional application. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]
• U.S. Patent No. 7,502,738 (Application Ser. No. 11/747,547): Issued March 10, 2009. This is a divisional of Application Ser. No. 10/452,147. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]
• U.S. Patent No. 8,731,929 (Application Ser. No. 12/365,516): Issued May 20, 2014. This is a continuation of Application Ser. No. 11/747,547. [cite: US9734825, Cross-Reference to Related Applications]
• US20140249821A1 (Application No. US14/278,627): This is a published application related to US9734825, which is also listed as US14/278,627. [cite: US9734825] This is the parent application that matured into US9734825B2.

Projected Expiration Date

The patent states its legal status as "Expired - Fee Related, expires 2023-11-12". [cite: US9734825] This indicates that US9734825 has already expired. The adjusted expiration date of November 12, 2023, is explicitly provided in the patent's Google Patents listing. [cite: US9734825]