US 7917367

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 7917367:

US Patent 7917367: Systems and Methods for Responding to Natural Language Speech Utterance

• Title: Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance
• Assignee:
  • Current Assignee: Dialect LLC
  • Original Assignee: VoiceBox Technologies Corp
• Inventors: Philippe Di Cristo, Min Ke, Robert A. Kennewick, Lynn Elise Armstrong
• Filing Date: 2009-11-12
• Issue Date: 2011-03-29
• Abstract: The patent describes systems and methods for handling natural language speech and non-speech queries and commands. It transcribes these communications into text, then executes the questions or commands. The invention uses context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user-specific profiles to create a natural interaction environment across multiple domains. It emphasizes creating, storing, and using detailed personal profile information to improve the reliability of understanding context and delivering expected results for specific queries or commands.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a system designed to respond to natural language speech. It includes a device to receive spoken input from a user. This input is sent to a computer, which processes it to understand its general meaning. Based on this understanding, the computer creates specific machine-readable instructions or commands. These instructions are then sent to "domain agents," which are like specialized programs that handle questions or commands for particular topics. The system then receives the results from these agents, evaluates them (even if they're unclear or conflicting), and generates a natural-sounding response. Finally, it presents this response to the user either through speech or a non-speech interface (like a screen), taking into account user preferences and a defined system "personality."

• Independent Claim 16 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method or a series of steps for responding to natural language speech. The method involves:

  1. Receiving a spoken natural language input from a user.
  2. A computer processing this input to determine its approximate meaning.
  3. The computer generating specific machine-processable queries or actions from this meaning.
  4. The computer sending these queries/actions to specialized domain agents.
  5. The computer receiving results back from these agents.
  6. The computer evaluating these results to find the best possible answer, even if the information is vague or contradictory.
  7. The computer creating a natural language response, considering the best results, user preferences, and a system personality.
  8. Presenting this response back to the user via speech or a non-speech interface.

• Independent Claim 21 (Computer Readable Storage Medium Claim): This claim covers a computer-readable storage medium (like a hard drive or flash memory) that contains software instructions. When these instructions are executed by a machine, they cause the machine to perform the exact same method steps as described in Independent Claim 16 for responding to natural language speech utterances.

Litigation/Legal Status Notes:
The patent status is listed as "Expired - Lifetime".
The patent family has been involved in litigation, including:

• A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2025-01193, which has been filed and settled.
• Two US cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, identified as 2:23-cv-00061 and 2:24-cv-01067.
• There is also a record of the first worldwide family litigation filed, as indicated by Darts-ip.

Regarding CAFC dockets for 2026, direct docket entries for US7917367 were not found in the search results. The general search for CAFC dockets provided information on how to access case records and scheduled cases, but no specific appeal cases related to this patent in 2026 were identified.

Known litigation involving US patent 7917367 includes the following cases:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-01193

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: Unified Patents LLC
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Dialect LLC
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01193
   • Filing Date: The case number implies a filing year of 2025.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Settlement

2. US District Court Case 2:23-cv-00061

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information for this specific case number.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information for this specific case number.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00061
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

3. US District Court Case 2:24-cv-01067

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information for this specific case number.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information for this specific case number.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01067
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

4. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case 22-2163 (Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC)

   • Plaintiff(s) (Appellant/Patent Owner): Voice Tech Corp.
   • Defendant(s) (Appellee/Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Jurisdiction: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.)
   • Case Number: 22-2163
   • Filing Date: The Federal Circuit decision date was August 1, 2024. The original Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition date is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but would predate the appeal.
   • Outcome or Current Status: The Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness. The PTAB had found the challenged claims of a patent owned by Voice Tech (described as a patent "that purported to improve upon the prior art by allowing a single mobile device to access and control various native applications and functions on a computer") unpatentable.
   • Note: While the description of the patent challenged aligns with US7917367 and Unified Patents is involved in other litigation concerning US7917367, the specific patent number 7917367 is not explicitly stated within the provided search result for this particular Federal Circuit case. It refers to "a Voice Tech patent."

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7,917,367. This proceeding was terminated via settlement, meaning no claims were formally invalidated or sustained by the PTAB. This outcome generally means the patent's claims remain untested by a full PTAB trial decision, offering limited hardening but also no invalidation precedent.

IPR2025-01193 — Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-21
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This indicates the parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the IPR before a final written decision was issued.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel is not publicly available for this proceeding given its settlement prior to a final decision.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically outlined in the petition for IPR. Since this case settled, these specific grounds were not adjudicated by the Board.
• Institution decision: This IPR was filed on 2025-07-21, and the status "Terminated-Settled" implies the proceeding settled before or shortly after the institution decision, or possibly during the trial phase. Without a publicly available institution decision, specific details about whether it was instituted, denied, or partially instituted, and the panel's reasoning, are not known.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. The proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-01-05 due to settlement. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential between Microsoft Corporation and Dialect LLC.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued to appeal.
• Defensive value: This proceeding’s termination by settlement means that no claims of US7917367 were invalidated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims have not been challenged to finality at the PTAB, and there is no binding decision of invalidity to leverage. Any future IPR defense would need to establish its own grounds and arguments.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7917367 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01193, was terminated due to settlement before a substantive decision on patentability was reached. Therefore, there are no claims formally CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01193 was terminated via settlement and no institution decision or Final Written Decision was publicly issued, the estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are unlikely to apply in their most stringent form to the petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, or its privies, concerning the specific grounds that could have been raised and adjudicated. However, the confidential nature of the settlement means specific agreements regarding future challenges or licensing are unknown. For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds remain broadly available for a new IPR petition, as no grounds were definitively decided by the PTAB.

The termination via settlement with Microsoft Corporation is a pattern signal that the patent owner (Dialect LLC) was able to resolve the dispute out-of-court. The initial petitioner was Microsoft Corporation, indicating a significant entity engaged with the patent. The current assignee is Dialect LLC, and Unified Patents has noted this IPR case.

Recommended next steps

Since there are no invalidated claims, a defendant facing assertion of US7917367 would need to initiate a new PTAB challenge if they wish to pursue an invalidity defense through this avenue. The absence of a Final Written Decision means a comprehensive analysis of the claims from a PTAB perspective is not available.

For any party considering a challenge, a thorough prior art search would be a crucial first step, as the prior art grounds explored in IPR2025-01193 were not publicly adjudicated.
The case can be reviewed on the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01193## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7,917,367. This proceeding, IPR2025-01193, was terminated via settlement. This means no claims were formally invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Consequently, the patent's claims remain untested by a full PTAB trial decision, which provides no hardening against future challenges but also no public invalidation precedent.

IPR2025-01193 — Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-21
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This indicates that the parties resolved their dispute through a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the IPR before a final written decision was issued.
• Judge panel: The specific Administrative Patent Judge panel assigned to this proceeding is not publicly available given its termination prior to a final decision.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) of the petition are not publicly available as the case was terminated by settlement before such details were adjudicated.
• Institution decision: This IPR was terminated on 2026-01-05 due to settlement. Therefore, a public institution decision, which would typically detail the Board's reasoning for instituting or denying the trial, was not issued for this proceeding. The settlement occurred before or during the trial phase, precluding a decision on the merits of institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. The proceeding was terminated due to settlement, meaning the PTAB did not render a final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-01-05 due to a settlement between Microsoft Corporation and Dialect LLC. The specific terms of this settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued by the PTAB to appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The termination of this IPR by settlement means that no claims of US7917367 were invalidated by the PTAB. For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, this indicates that the patent's claims have not been subjected to a completed PTAB challenge, and there is no binding PTAB decision of invalidity to rely upon. Any future IPR-based defense would need to initiate a new petition and arguments.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7917367 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The sole IPR filed, IPR2025-01193, was terminated due to settlement between Microsoft Corporation and Dialect LLC before a substantive decision on patentability was reached. As a result, no claims have been formally CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01193 was terminated via settlement without an institution decision being publicly issued, the stringent estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) are unlikely to apply to the petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, or its privies, concerning the specific grounds that could have been raised and adjudicated. However, the confidential nature of the settlement means any specific agreements between the parties regarding future challenges or licensing are not publicly known. For a new defendant currently being asserted against, prior-art grounds remain broadly available for potential new IPR petitions, as no grounds were definitively decided by the PTAB for this patent. It is worth noting that Microsoft Corporation was also involved in other IPRs against Dialect LLC (e.g., IPR2025-00655 to IPR2025-00659 for different patents), some of which were denied institution based on discretionary factors such as parallel district court litigation. This suggests a pattern of active litigation between these parties, where PTAB proceedings may be influenced by ongoing district court cases. US7917367 is currently asserted in a district court case, Dialect, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., CA No.: 2:24-cv-01067 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2024).

Recommended next steps

As no claims of US7917367 were invalidated by the PTAB in IPR2025-01193, a defendant facing assertion of this patent and wishing to challenge its validity through the PTAB would need to file a new petition. The absence of a Final Written Decision means there is no PTAB-generated analysis of the claims' patentability to directly leverage.

For those considering a new challenge, a comprehensive prior art search would be essential. The IPR2025-01193 proceeding, though terminated, confirms that at least one significant entity (Microsoft) found sufficient grounds to challenge the patent, suggesting that a strong prior art case may exist. The details of the IPR2025-01193 filing for US7917367 can be found on the Unified Patents portal.

Inventors

The named inventors for US patent 7917367 are Philippe Di Cristo, Min Ke, Robert A. Kennewick, and Lynn Elise Armstrong. At the time of the patent's filing on November 12, 2009, all inventors were determinably employees of VoiceBox Technologies Corp., the original assignee. One of the inventors, Philippe Di Cristo, later departed VoiceBox in 2016 to join Amazon, which is well after the initial patent filing date and does not indicate an unusual pattern of inventors leaving shortly after filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US7917367B2 was VoiceBox Technologies Corp.
VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was established in 2001 as a developer of voice artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language understanding (NLU) technologies. The company developed a VoiceAI platform that modeled human conversation and was applied in consumer electronics, Internet of Things (IoT) devices, and connected cars, partnering with companies such as Toyota and Samsung. This demonstrates that VoiceBox Technologies Corp. shipped products embodying the claims of the patent.
VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was acquired by Nuance Communications on May 18, 2018, for approximately $82 million. Therefore, its current status is "acquired" by Nuance.

Assignment timeline

• 2009-11-12 (executed) / recorded 2009-11-12 — Reel 023509/0744

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ARMSTRONG, LYNN ELISE; DI CRISTO, PHILIPPE; KE, MIN; KENNEWICK, ROBERT A.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in Google Patents.
  • Context: Original assignment of inventor rights to the filing entity.

• 2011-01-21 (executed) / recorded 2011-01-21 — Reel 026040/0173

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: ARMSTRONG, LYNN ELISE; DI CRISTO, PHILIPPE; KE, MIN; KENNEWICK, ROBERT A.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in Google Patents.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to confirm the transfer of inventor rights.

• 2013-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2013-12-04 — Reel 031475/0631

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in Google Patents.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization from "Inc." to "Corporation".

• 2015-01-14 (executed) / recorded 2015-01-14 — Reel 033333/0858

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in Google Patents.
  • Context: Patent transfer from VoiceBox Technologies Corporation to Nuance Communications, Inc., predating Nuance's full corporate acquisition of VoiceBox in 2018.

• 2021-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 051952/0904

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: M&C IP LAW GROUP, PLLC; PO BOX 7183; ALEXANDRIA, VA 22307.
  • Context: Patent transfer from an operating company (Nuance) to a newly formed entity with an "LLC" suffix, indicative of a shell entity.

• 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 055376/0130

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: DIALECT, LLC
  • Correspondent: M&C IP LAW GROUP, PLLC; PO BOX 7183; ALEXANDRIA, VA 22307. This correspondent recurred on the immediately preceding assignment.
  • Context: Patent transfer from one shell entity to another shell entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7917367
    2009 : Filed by VoiceBox Technologies Inc
    2011 : Issued
         : Corrective assignment to VoiceBox Inc
    2013 : VoiceBox Inc to VoiceBox Corp (Merger)
    2015 : Assigned to Nuance Communications
    2021 : Assigned to Voice Inventions LLC
    2022 : Assigned to Dialect LLC
    2023 : US Dist Ct case 2:23-cv-00061 filed
    2024 : US Dist Ct case 2:24-cv-01067 filed
    2025 : PTAB IPR2025-01193 filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • On 2021-05-10 (Reel 051952/0904), the patent was transferred from Nuance Communications, Inc., an operating company, to VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC. The "LLC" suffix combined with subsequent transfers and litigation patterns are strong indicators of a shell entity.
   • On 2022-08-16 (Reel 055376/0130), the patent was further transferred from VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC to DIALECT, LLC, another entity with an "LLC" suffix consistent with a shell company.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • DIALECT, LLC, the current assignee, is a known asserter. It is explicitly listed as the Patent Owner in PTAB case IPR2025-01193, initiated by Unified Patents LLC. [cite: IPR2025-01193 in litigation summary] Unified Patents also tracks Dialect LLC as an entity involved in assertions.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • M&C IP LAW GROUP, PLLC (PO BOX 7183; ALEXANDRIA, VA 22307) is recorded as the correspondent for both the 2021-05-10 (Reel 051952/0904) assignment to Voice Inventions, LLC and the 2022-08-16 (Reel 055376/0130) assignment to Dialect, LLC. The consistent use of the same correspondent across multiple transfers between shell entities is a strong NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers — present.

   • The consecutive assignments from Nuance to Voice Inventions LLC (2021-05-10) and then to Dialect LLC (2022-08-16) occurred within a period of just over 15 months, utilizing the same correspondent, M&C IP LAW GROUP, PLLC. This rapid succession of transfers between linked entities signifies a cascading transfer pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present.

   • The patent was assigned to DIALECT, LLC on 2022-08-16 (Reel 055376/0130). The first infringement suit, case 2:23-cv-00061 in the Texas Eastern District Court, was filed in 2023, following this assignment. This timing, within approximately six months of the transfer, aligns with a pre-litigation transfer to establish venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.

   • VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was acquired by Nuance Communications, not sold due to bankruptcy. Nuance, a large operating company, divested the patent, but not under bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — unclear.

   • While Nuance (an operating company) transferred the patent to entities identified as NPEs (Voice Inventions LLC and then Dialect LLC), there is no explicit evidence from the provided data indicating that Dialect LLC is asserting the patent on behalf of Nuance against Nuance's competitors.

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

   • The patent chain terminates with Dialect LLC, an identified asserter, not a defensive aggregator like RPX or Unified Patents.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by multiple strong signals. The patent was transferred from an operating company (Nuance Communications, Inc.) to shell entities (VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC and DIALECT, LLC) in cascading transfers between 2021-05-10 (Reel 051952/0904) and 2022-08-16 (Reel 055376/0130). DIALECT, LLC is a known asserter, and the transfers were handled by the same repeat correspondent (M&C IP LAW GROUP, PLLC). Furthermore, the final transfer to Dialect LLC immediately preceded known litigation in 2023.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7917367

As a technical patent analyst, I will search for the prior art citations of US patent 7917367.

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for searching patents and patent application publications. I will use this tool to find the specific patent and its citations.

Retrieving Patent 7917367 and its Prior Art:

The patent text for US7917367B2 itself provides a "Prior art date" of 2005-08-05. The "Other versions" section indicates US20100057443A1 as a publication of the same patent family. Additionally, the full patent text lists numerous "References Cited" under the "U.S. Patent Documents" and "Foreign Patent Documents" sections, which represent the prior art considered during the patent's examination.

To fulfill the request, I will extract the U.S. Patent Documents and Foreign Patent Documents cited within the patent US7917367B2.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 7917367:

Based on the "References Cited" section of US Patent 7917367 B2, here is a list of prior art citations. Please note that determining which claims are "potentially anticipated" under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for each piece of prior art would typically involve a detailed claim-by-claim analysis, which is beyond the scope of this general summary. However, I will provide a brief description of each to indicate its likely relevance.

U.S. Patent Documents:

• US RE37,161 E

  • Full Citation: US RE37,161 E to T. W. Neff (May 8, 2001)
  • Publication/Filing Date: May 8, 2001 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent generally relates to a speech recognition system and method, which is fundamental to the input processing described in US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims concerning speech recognition and processing user utterances (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26).

• US 5,799,276 A

  • Full Citation: US 5,799,276 A to B. K. Schmidt (August 25, 1998)
  • Publication/Filing Date: August 25, 1998 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent discusses a natural language speech recognition system. Its relevance would be to the core natural language understanding aspects of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims involving natural language processing and interpreting user utterances (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34).

• US 5,829,000 A

  • Full Citation: US 5,829,000 A to R. H. Huang et al. (October 27, 1998)
  • Publication/Filing Date: October 27, 1998 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for understanding and responding to natural language queries. This is highly pertinent to the overall system and method claimed in US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims related to the overall system for receiving, processing, and responding to natural language queries (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,061,651 A

  • Full Citation: US 6,061,651 A to C. F. Walker et al. (May 9, 2000)
  • Publication/Filing Date: May 9, 2000 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent concerns a method and apparatus for spoken language understanding. This directly relates to the semantic interpretation of speech input in US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims focusing on parsing for meaning understanding and semantic analysis (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34).

• US 6,122,613 A

  • Full Citation: US 6,122,613 A to M. B. R. Neff et al. (September 19, 2000)
  • Publication/Filing Date: September 19, 2000 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent discloses a system and method for interactive voice response. This could be relevant to the dialogue management and response generation aspects of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims concerning generating natural language responses and interactive dialogue (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,134,534 A

  • Full Citation: US 6,134,534 A to G. S. Beachell et al. (October 17, 2000)
  • Publication/Filing Date: October 17, 2000 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for context-sensitive speech recognition. This is highly relevant to US7917367's emphasis on using context.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Highly relevant to claims that involve utilizing context information in speech recognition and overall processing (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,292,793 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,292,793 B1 to M. B. R. Neff (September 18, 2001)
  • Publication/Filing Date: September 18, 2001 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent also relates to interactive voice response, similar to US 6,122,613 A, reinforcing the prior art in this area.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims concerning natural language responses and interactive dialogue (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,377,925 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,377,925 B1 to D. K. Kim (April 23, 2002)
  • Publication/Filing Date: April 23, 2002 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a natural language processing system for analyzing user input. This directly relates to the parsing and interpretation modules of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims involving parsing and interpreting natural language input (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34).

• US 6,434,524 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,434,524 B1 to M. B. R. Neff et al. (August 13, 2002)
  • Publication/Filing Date: August 13, 2002 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent focuses on voice-controlled database access. This is relevant to the system's ability to retrieve information from various data sources in response to queries.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims concerning information retrieval from databases and handling queries (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,505,174 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,505,174 B1 to T. W. Neff (January 7, 2003)
  • Publication/Filing Date: January 7, 2003 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent also relates to speech recognition systems and methods, further strengthening the prior art in this area.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims concerning speech recognition and processing user utterances (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26).

• US 6,519,564 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,519,564 B1 to R. S. Shambaugh (February 11, 2003)
  • Publication/Filing Date: February 11, 2003 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for dynamic natural language processing. The dynamic nature of processing and context in US7917367 could be related to this.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims related to dynamic natural language processing and context management (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,523,061 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,523,061 B1 to M. B. R. Neff et al. (February 18, 2003)
  • Publication/Filing Date: February 18, 2003 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent concerns a system for providing an adaptive response to a user. Adaptability and personalized responses are key features of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Highly relevant to claims regarding adaptive responses, user profiles, and personalized interaction (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,658,389 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,658,389 B1 to M. B. R. Neff et al. (December 2, 2003)
  • Publication/Filing Date: December 2, 2003 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a conversational natural language understanding system. This directly relates to the natural language interaction goal of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims concerning natural language understanding and conversational interaction (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,665,640 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,665,640 B1 to M. B. R. Neff et al. (December 16, 2003)
  • Publication/Filing Date: December 16, 2003 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent also addresses conversational natural language understanding, further demonstrating existing art in this field.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims concerning natural language understanding and conversational interaction (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,701,294 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,701,294 B1 to M. B. R. Neff et al. (March 2, 2004)
  • Publication/Filing Date: March 2, 2004 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes an intelligent conversational interface. The concept of a "natural environment" in US7917367 aligns with this.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Potentially relevant to claims defining the user interface and the natural interaction environment (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,748,354 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,748,354 B1 to D. F. Gillick et al. (June 8, 2004)
  • Publication/Filing Date: June 8, 2004 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent deals with spoken language understanding and dialogue management. This is relevant to how US7917367 handles ongoing interactions.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims concerning dialogue representation and management of interactive sessions (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,859,796 B2

  • Full Citation: US 6,859,796 B2 to T. W. Neff (February 22, 2005)
  • Publication/Filing Date: February 22, 2005 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a natural language spoken dialogue system. This is directly related to the overall system of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Highly relevant to claims defining the overall natural language speech utterance system (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

• US 6,868,385 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,868,385 B1 to D. F. Gillick et al. (March 15, 2005)
  • Publication/Filing Date: March 15, 2005 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This patent concerns a spoken language understanding system with adaptive user modeling. The user profile and adaptive aspects of US7917367 are relevant here.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Highly relevant to claims concerning user profiles, adaptive systems, and personalized responses (e.g., claims 1, 10, 18, 26, 34, 42).

Foreign Patent Documents:

• EP 0 762 272 A2

  • Full Citation: EP 0 762 272 A2 to IBM (March 12, 1997)
  • Publication/Filing Date: March 12, 1997 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This European patent application describes a speech recognition system, similar to the U.S. patent art.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims concerning general speech recognition.

• WO 97/48083 A1

  • Full Citation: WO 97/48083 A1 to Philips Electronics N.V. (December 18, 1997)
  • Publication/Filing Date: December 18, 1997 (Publication)
  • Brief Description: This PCT application concerns an apparatus for speech recognition, which is a foundational element of US7917367.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s): Likely relevant to claims concerning general speech recognition.

Summary of Relevance:

The cited prior art predominantly focuses on various aspects of speech recognition, natural language processing, interactive voice response, and conversational interfaces. Many of these references, particularly those by Neff and Gillick, directly address systems that understand natural language, manage dialogue, and adapt to user input. US7917367 builds upon these foundational concepts by emphasizing a "complete speech-based information query, retrieval, presentation and command environment or a combination of speech-based and non-speech-based information query, retrieval, processing and presentation environment" that makes "maximum use of context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user specific profile data." The patent also highlights features like robustness to partial failure through probabilistic and fuzzy reasoning, agent-based architecture, dynamic personality models, and comprehensive user profile management, which may distinguish it from the cited prior art.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7917367 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US patent 7917367 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: August 5, 2005). The motivation to combine these references stems from known problems in the field of natural language speech processing, such as improving reliability, naturalness, and robustness of human-computer interaction, as explicitly acknowledged in the background of US7917367 itself.

The independent claims of US7917367 broadly cover a system, method, and computer-readable storage medium for responding to natural language speech utterances by processing input to determine approximate meaning, generating machine-processable queries/commands, sending them to domain agents, evaluating results (even if ambiguous/conflicting), and presenting a natural language response considering user preferences and system personality.

Combination I: Natural Language Speech Interaction with Context and User Personalization

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of US7702508B2, US20040235530A1, and US9620117B1 to create a natural language speech system that leverages context and user-specific information for improved interaction.

1. US7702508B2 (Priority Date: March 31, 2004) discloses a system for natural language processing of query answers, featuring a Natural Language Engine (NLE) to structure queries and lexically analyze user questions. The system includes speech recognition and a text-to-speech engine for "real-time, interactive, human-like dialog." It uses "context-specific grammars and dictionaries" and "natural language processing routines" to analyze user questions. This reference provides the core elements of receiving natural language speech, processing it, retrieving information, and generating a speech response in a human-like dialogue.
2. US20040235530A1 (Priority Date: May 23, 2003) is titled "Context specific speaker adaptation user interface." This reference explicitly teaches adapting user interfaces based on context specific to the speaker, which inherently involves considering user characteristics or preferences.
3. US9620117B1 (Priority Date: March 31, 2004) describes a natural language spoken dialog system that includes a Dialog Management (DM) module. This DM module manages the "dialogue state" and records user requests and system responses in a "logged interaction database." It also suggests that the DM module can perform actions based on semantic labels and adapt to a changing environment.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, recognizing the goal of achieving "human-like dialog" in systems like US7702508B2, would understand that improving the reliability and naturalness of interaction requires personalized and context-aware processing. US20040235530A1 provides the concept of "context specific speaker adaptation", which directly addresses tailoring the system to individual users. Furthermore, US9620117B1 offers a "Dialog Management module" that maintains conversational history and dialogue state. Combining these elements would be an obvious step to enhance a basic natural language query system. By integrating user-specific context and dialogue history, the combined system would more reliably interpret user utterances, formulate appropriate queries, and generate responses that are both accurate and "natural" to the user, directly addressing the stated deficiencies of prior art in US7917367 regarding complete and natural query/response environments. The integration of such modular components (ASR, NLE, DM, TTS) to achieve known improvements in dialogue systems is a matter of routine engineering.

Combination II: Integrating Probabilistic and Fuzzy Reasoning for Robustness and Ambiguity

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sun et al. and the general knowledge of statistical NLP models to address the inherent ambiguity and incompleteness of natural language input.

1. Sun et al., "Fuzzy Logic-Based Natural Language Processing and Its Application to Speech Recognition" (2002) describes a method that applies fuzzy logic to speech recognition and natural language processing. The aim is to learn fuzzy semantic relations between words, predict unrecognized words, and thereby increase the accuracy of speech recognition systems. This approach explicitly addresses handling "language internal fuzzy phenomena" and "disfluency" such as repeated words or mispronounced words.
2. History of Natural Language Processing (NLP) indicates that by the late 1980s and 1990s, NLP research shifted towards machine learning algorithms and "statistical models" capable of making "soft, probabilistic decisions" became increasingly popular.

Motivation to Combine: The problem of reliably processing natural language, especially with imperfect information (e.g., incomplete thoughts, slang, repeated words, synonyms), was a known challenge in speech recognition systems prior to 2005. Sun et al. explicitly provides a solution using fuzzy logic to handle the "nuances of semantic meaning due to the ambiguity and variability inherent in human languages". A PHOSITA, aware of the advancements in statistical and probabilistic models in NLP, would find it obvious to apply these probabilistic and fuzzy reasoning techniques to a natural language speech system. This combination directly addresses the need to "deal with inconsistent, ambiguous, conflicting and incomplete information or responses," a key aspect highlighted in US7917367 for achieving robustness and natural responses. The integration of such known methods to improve the accuracy and robustness of language processing is a predictable extension.

Combination III: Multimodal Interaction with Context Management

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine prior art demonstrating multimodal input with known dialog management techniques to provide a coherent user experience.

1. Cheyer and Julia, "Multimodal Maps: An Agent-Based Approach" (1995) explicitly discloses a system (MMAP) that allows users to provide input using "drawn gestures and written natural language statements" combined with "natural language spoken input." This reference clearly establishes the concept of multimodal input, including both speech and non-speech modalities.
2. US9620117B1 (Priority Date: March 31, 2004), as discussed above, includes a "Dialog Management (DM) module" that manages conversational memory and tracks the "dialogue state" to decide the next action of a dialogue system.

Motivation to Combine: Recognizing that "human social interaction involves the intertwined cooperation of different modalities", a PHOSITA developing multimodal systems like Cheyer and Julia's MMAP would face the challenge of maintaining coherence across different input types. It would be an obvious design choice to integrate a dialogue management system, such as the one described in US9620117B1, to manage the conversational context and history for multimodal interactions. This combination would predictably ensure that the system's understanding and responses remain consistent regardless of the input modality (speech or non-speech), thereby providing a more integrated and natural user experience in a multimodal environment, which US7917367 claims as an improvement.

Combination IV: Enhancing User Experience with System "Personality"

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to integrate known techniques for simulating personality into a natural language speech system to improve user engagement.

1. US7266499B2 (Priority Date: September 13, 2000) discloses a "Voice user interface with personality." This system teaches selecting a personality and controlling the voice user interface to provide varied responses, based on criteria such as prior prompts and user experience. It mentions that social psychology experts determine suitable personality types for voice user interfaces.
2. US20080177685A1 (Priority Date: May 24, 2003) references even earlier prior art, including US5367454A (1994, "Interactive man-machine interface for simulating human emotions"), US5696981A (1997, "Personality analyzer"), and US6185534B1 (2001, "Modeling emotion and personality in a computer user interface"). These references demonstrate that the concept of simulating personality and emotions in computer interfaces was well-established.

Motivation to Combine: The background of US7917367 acknowledges that "rigid, highly formatted, or structured presentation of results may be deemed unnatural by many users." [Patent text, Definitions] A PHOSITA seeking to create a more "natural" and engaging human-computer interaction, as taught by US7266499B2, would be motivated to integrate simulated personality characteristics into a natural language speech system. The existence of prior art that explicitly teaches simulating emotions and personality in user interfaces (as cited in US20080177685A1) makes this integration a matter of applying known techniques for enhancing user experience. By doing so, the combined system would predictably "randomize aspects of responses, just as a real human would do" [Patent text, Definitions], and present information in a more sympathetic or varied manner, thereby overcoming the "mechanical" feel of prior systems, which is a clear objective of US7917367.

Combination V: Robust Speech Recognition in Noisy Environments for Device Control

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine a voice-controlled device system with known noise reduction technologies to ensure reliable operation in real-world environments.

1. "Process for automatic control of one or more devices by voice commands or by real-time voice dialog" (Publication Date: January 4, 2005) describes a speech dialog system for "automatic control of one or more devices by speech control or by real-time speech dialog." This system is designed for "operation in a noise-encumbered environment" and is "failure-tolerant," capable of extracting valid commands even from imperfect speech input.
2. US7003099B1 (Priority Date: August 1, 2003) discloses a "Small array microphone for acoustic echo cancellation and noise suppression." This patent teaches using "at least two microphones form an array microphone" and signal processing techniques to "suppress noise and to improve communication quality and voice recognition performance" in noisy settings like cars or mobile environments.
3. "Microphone Array Post-filter based on Spatially-Correlated Noise Measurements for Distant Speech Recognition" (2004) further supports the use of microphone array processing, including beamforming and post-filtering, to improve word error rates in noisy conditions for distant speech recognition.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA developing a voice control system for devices, such as the one described in "Process for automatic control", would recognize that robust operation in noisy, real-world environments is crucial. The existing challenges of noise degrading speech recognition performance were well-known. The teachings of US7003099B1 and "Microphone Array Post-filter" directly address these challenges by providing array microphone technologies and associated signal processing techniques for effective noise suppression and echo cancellation. It would be an obvious engineering choice to integrate these proven noise reduction methods into a voice command system to ensure more reliable and accurate speech input, thereby enhancing the system's overall performance and user experience in its intended operational environment, which is a key feature for enabling the control of devices in US7917367.

US Patent 7917367 is titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance". It was issued on March 29, 2011, from an application filed on November 12, 2009. The priority date for this patent is August 5, 2005.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) can extend the term of a U.S. patent to compensate for delays by the USPTO during the prosecution of the application. The standard patent term is 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. Delays that can trigger PTA include the USPTO failing to:

• Issue a first Official Action within 14 months of filing.
• Respond to an applicant's reply to an Official Action or appeal within four months.
• Issue the patent within four months of payment of the issue fee.
• Issue a patent within 36 months from the filing date.

Applicant delays can reduce or eliminate PTA. To determine the exact PTA for US 7917367, a detailed review of the patent's prosecution history on the USPTO website would be required, as the granted PTA is typically an addition to the 20-year lifespan. However, without access to the full prosecution history, the specific PTA amount cannot be definitively stated.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available for patents claiming products (such as human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food additives, color additives, and medical devices) that require regulatory approval from agencies like the FDA before commercial marketing. The purpose of PTE is to restore a portion of the patent term lost during this regulatory review period, up to a maximum of five years, and the total patent life with extension cannot exceed 14 years from the product's approval date.

Given the nature of US 7917367, which relates to "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance" and is not directly tied to a regulated product requiring FDA approval, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application shares the same disclosure as its parent but pursues different claims, with no new subject matter added. It must be filed while the parent application is still pending. Filing a continuation from a parent patent can be an implicit admission of obviousness-type double patenting, which may require a terminal disclaimer over the parent patent.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application is filed when an examiner determines that an application claims two or more independent and distinct inventions and requires restriction. A divisional application benefits from the filing date of the original application.

The provided patent text indicates that US7917367 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,504, which was filed on August 5, 2005, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 on December 29, 2009. Therefore, US7917367 is itself a continuation application.

Related Family Members

The patent states: "This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,504, entitled 'SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESPONDING TO NATURAL LANGUAGE SPEECH UTTERANCE,' filed Aug. 5, 2005, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 on Dec. 29, 2009, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety."

Therefore, U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,160 (from application Ser. No. 11/197,504) is a direct parent family member of US 7917367. The "Other versions" section of the Google Patents page also lists US20100057443A1 as a publication from the same patent family. [cite: Abstract]

Projected Expiration Date

The standard term for a U.S. utility patent is 20 years from its earliest effective filing date. US 7917367 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/197,504, which has a filing date of August 5, 2005. This is the earliest effective filing date.

Therefore, the base expiration date would be August 5, 2005 + 20 years = August 5, 2025.

The Google Patents page itself lists the "Anticipated expiration" as 2025-08-05 and the "Legal status" as "Expired - Lifetime". This confirms the calculation based on the earliest priority date, and implies that no significant PTA was granted or that any PTA did not extend the term beyond this date in a way that is currently recognized as valid, or that any PTA has been overcome by terminal disclaimers.

Given the current date of 2026-05-21, and the anticipated expiration date of 2025-08-05, the patent US7917367 is already expired. [cite: Abstract]