US 9263039

US Patent 9263039, titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance," has been assigned to Dialect LLC. The inventors are Philippe Di Cristo, Min Ke, Robert A. Kennewick, and Lynn Elise Armstrong. The patent was filed on September 29, 2014, and issued on February 16, 2016.

The abstract describes systems and methods designed to receive both speech and non-speech natural language input, convert these into textual messages, and then execute the contained questions or commands. The invention utilizes context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user-specific profile data to create a natural interaction environment for users across multiple domains. It also focuses on creating, storing, and using extensive personal profile information to improve the accuracy of determining the context of communications and delivering relevant results.

As of April 26, 2026, the patent's legal status is "Expired - Lifetime," with an anticipated expiration date of August 5, 2025, indicating that the patent has expired. Despite its expiration, the patent family has active litigation, including PTAB cases filed in 2025 and US district court cases filed in Washington (2:26-cv-00810), Virginia (1:23-cv-00581), and Texas (7:25-cv-00060, 2:24-cv-00207). While direct CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for patent 9263039 were not directly identifiable through a broad search of CAFC scheduled cases, the listed district court cases may lead to appellate review. The impact of the patent's expiration on ongoing litigation would require further legal analysis.

Here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims:

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a process for a system to understand and respond to a user's spoken natural language. The method involves several steps:

1. Receiving Utterance: The system first captures a user's natural language speech (e.g., a question or command) through a speech unit.
2. Transcribing to Text: This spoken input is then converted into a text message using advanced speech recognition technology, which employs various linguistic rules or extensive vocabulary models.
3. Parsing Keywords: The system then analyzes this text message to pinpoint key words or phrases.
4. Comparing to Context Grammar: These identified keywords are checked against a set of predefined entries within a "context description grammar," which is linked to specific "agents" (software modules designed for particular tasks or domains).
5. Scoring Matches: The system evaluates how well the keywords match the active grammars within this context description.
6. Determining Best Match: Based on these scores, the system identifies the most relevant match.
7. Selecting an Agent: An appropriate software agent is chosen from a collection of available agents based on this best match.
8. Generating Query/Command: A specific, machine-understandable query or command is then created for the selected agent, formatted precisely to suit the requirements of the information source that the agent will interact with.
9. Sending to Source: This formatted query or command is sent to its designated information source (e.g., a database or another device).
10. Generating Response: Finally, a natural language response is generated and delivered back to the user, based on the information received from the target source.

Independent Claim 15 (System Claim):
This claim outlines the hardware and software components of a system designed to perform the method described in Claim 1. The system comprises:

1. Speech Unit: A component configured to receive natural language speech from a user.
2. Multi-Pass Automatic Speech Recognition Module: A software component responsible for converting the received speech into a text message, using dictation or large vocabulary grammars.
3. Parser: A module configured to analyze the text message and identify key words.
4. Context Description Grammar Module: A storage unit holding the entries against which the keywords are compared.
5. Processor: The central processing unit or component that performs several key functions:
   • It calculates scores for active grammars based on keyword comparison.
   • It determines the best match from these scores.
   • It selects the appropriate agent from a group of agents.
   • It generates a machine-processable query or command tailored to the selected agent and its target information source.
   • It sends this query or command to the target source.
6. Response Generator Module: A component that creates a natural language response for the user based on the results obtained from the target source.

US Patent 9263039 has been involved in the following known litigation:

PTAB Cases (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

1. Case Number: IPR2025-01333

   • Jurisdiction: PTAB
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

2. Case Number: IPR2025-00657

   • Jurisdiction: PTAB
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

US District Court Cases

1. Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

   • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00810
   • Filing Date: 2026 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Filed, litigation ongoing (status not further specified beyond "litigation").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

2. Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 1:23-cv-00581
   • Filing Date: 2023 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Filed, litigation ongoing (status not further specified beyond "litigation").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

3. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00060
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Filed, litigation ongoing (status not further specified beyond "litigation").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

4. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00207
   • Filing Date: 2024 (implied from case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Filed, litigation ongoing (status not further specified beyond "litigation").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 9,263,039. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were ever subjected to a full IPR trial or invalidated by the PTAB. From a defendant's perspective, the patent has survived one IPR petition without any claims being challenged on the merits, which means the claims remain untested by the PTAB process.

IPR2025-01333 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Dialect LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial - The petition was denied institution by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the discretionary denial decision.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly detailed for a discretionary denial where the merits are not reached. However, the petition was filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Institution decision: Denied (2026-03-04). The PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution of IPR2025-01333. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is generally outlined in the institution decision itself, often citing factors like parallel district court litigation, advanced stage of litigation, or inefficient use of PTAB resources, as per Fintiv or other discretionary denial factors.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution prior to trial.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Meta Platforms, Inc.'s attempt to challenge the patent at the PTAB was unsuccessful, not on the merits of invalidity, but due to a procedural or discretionary denial. Therefore, the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB, and an IPR challenge by future petitioners using similar grounds would face the precedent of this discretionary denial, though each petition is evaluated on its own facts.

Strategic summary

All claims of US 9,263,039 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB, as the single IPR petition filed against it (IPR2025-01333 by Meta Platforms, Inc.) was denied institution on discretionary grounds. There have been no claims canceled or sustained on the merits by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01333 is limited. Since institution was denied, neither the petitioner (Meta Platforms, Inc.) nor its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. This is because estoppel only applies when a final written decision is issued. However, the discretionary denial itself could act as a practical deterrent for Meta Platforms or related entities from filing another petition with similar arguments, depending on the specific reasoning for the denial. For other defendants, prior-art grounds are generally still available, as there has been no adjudication of invalidity by the PTAB.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed on this patent, and it did not proceed to trial. This means there's no pattern of multiple filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner yet. The petitioner, Meta Platforms, Inc., is a large operating company, and their involvement suggests that the patent has likely been asserted against them in district court.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01333 was denied institution, no claims of US 9,263,039 have been invalidated by the PTAB. The institution decision, issued on 2026-03-04, is the relevant document outlining the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial. This decision can be found on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (E2E) system by searching for IPR2025-01333.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings currently pending for US 9,263,039.
• The absence of claims invalidated through PTAB proceedings means that, for a defendant, any infringement theory built on the patent's claims has not been challenged and overcome at the PTAB. However, the fact that an IPR was filed by a significant entity like Meta Platforms suggests the patent may be actively asserted.
• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to review the PTAB's discretionary denial decision for IPR2025-01333 to understand the specific reasons for denial. This insight can inform whether a new IPR petition is viable, considering potential Fintiv factors or other discretionary considerations, or if other defensive strategies would be more appropriate.
• For a defendant considering an IPR, new art or arguments that were not (or could not have been) presented in IPR2025-01333 might increase the chances of institution, especially if the discretionary denial was tied to specific procedural aspects of Meta's petition or parallel litigation status.

Citations:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01333

Inventors

• Philippe Di Cristo (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Min Ke (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Robert A. Kennewick (Nuance Communications Inc)
• Lynn Elise Armstrong (Nuance Communications Inc)

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventor departures. The priority date is 2005-08-05, and the application filing date for US9263039 is 2014-09-29, which is a continuation of earlier applications. The inventors were employed by Nuance Communications Inc at the time of the original priority application filing.

Original assignee

Nuance Communications Inc.
Nuance Communications Inc. is a multinational computer software technology corporation, providing speech recognition and artificial intelligence solutions. They shipped products embodying the claims, specifically in the area of speech recognition and natural language understanding, as evidenced by their core business. As of today, Nuance Communications Inc. is operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-29 — Reel 032646/0970

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: ARMSTRONG, LYNN ELISE; DI CRISTO, PHILIPPE; KE, MIN; KENNEWICK, ROBERT A.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
  • Context: Transfer from individual inventors to Voicebox Technologies, Inc.

• 2014-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-29 — Reel 032646/0971

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. (This correspondent recurs in this chain.)
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization/name change of Voicebox Technologies.

• 2020-02-06 (executed) / recorded 2020-02-06 — Reel 049337/0833

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Context: Transfer back to Nuance Communications, Inc., likely an acquisition or portfolio consolidation.

• 2021-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 053303/0545

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: NIXON PEABODY LLP
  • Context: Transfer to Voice Inventions, LLC.

• 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 058079/0474

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: DIALECT, LLC
  • Correspondent: ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. (This correspondent recurs in this chain.)
  • Context: Transfer to Dialect, LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9263039
    2014 : Inventors assign to Voicebox Tech Inc
         : Voicebox Tech Inc merges to Voicebox Tech Corp
    2016 : Issued
    2020 : Voicebox Tech Corp assigns 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 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 053303/0545: Transfer from NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. to VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC. The suffix "LLC" combined with the lack of known product association for "Voice Inventions, LLC" suggests a licensing-focused entity.
   • 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 058079/0474: Transfer from VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC to DIALECT, LLC. Similarly, "LLC" and no apparent product association for "Dialect, LLC" point to a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.

   • Dialect LLC, the current assignee as of the last recorded assignment (Reel 058079/0474, 2022-08-16), is listed as having ongoing litigation, including PTAB cases and US District Court cases across multiple districts (Texas, Virginia, Washington). Unified Patents also lists ongoing litigation associated with Dialect LLC, indicating it is an active asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.

   • ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. appears as the correspondent for:
     • 2014-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-29 — Reel 032646/0970 (inventors to Voicebox Technologies, INC.)
     • 2014-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-29 — Reel 032646/0971 (Voicebox Technologies, INC. to VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION)
     • 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 058079/0474 (VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC to DIALECT, LLC)
       The recurrence of this firm across transfers involving both an operating company (Voicebox) and subsequent transfers to suspected NPEs (Dialect, LLC) is a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — Present.

   • 2021-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-10 — Reel 053303/0545: Transfer to VOICE INVENTIONS, LLC.
   • 2022-08-16 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-16 — Reel 058079/0474: Transfer to DIALECT, LLC.
     These two transfers occur within a 15-month period, between two LLCs (Voice Inventions, LLC and Dialect, LLC), which is indicative of cascading transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear.
   The patent family has litigation filed, with the first worldwide family litigation filed on an unspecified date. Multiple US cases were filed in 2023, 2024, and 2026. The transfer to Dialect, LLC occurred on 2022-08-16 (Reel 058079/0474). Without the exact date of the "First worldwide family litigation filed", it's difficult to definitively assess if this transfer was within 6 months preceding it. However, given the subsequent litigation filings, it is highly probable the transfer was in preparation for assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present.
   No evidence in the assignment records or Google Patents indicates that Nuance Communications, Inc., Voicebox Technologies Corporation, Voice Inventions, LLC, or Dialect, LLC have filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Unclear.
   While Nuance Communications, Inc. transferred the patent to Voice Inventions, LLC, there is no explicit evidence from the provided sources (assignment records, Google Patents) to confirm a privateering arrangement where Dialect, LLC is asserting on Nuance's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present.
   The chain ends with Dialect, LLC, which is an active asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent chain shows strong indications of NPE activity, including multiple shell-entity transfers, specifically to Voice Inventions, LLC (Reel 053303/0545, 2021-05-10) and then to Dialect, LLC (Reel 058079/0474, 2022-08-16). Dialect, LLC is a known patent asserter with ongoing litigation, as indicated by Google Patents. The recurrence of ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. as correspondent across various transfers, including the final one to Dialect, LLC, further supports this conclusion. The cascading transfers between Voice Inventions, LLC and Dialect, LLC within a 15-month period also point to an assertion-driven strategy.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search for US9263039: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?id=9263039

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.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9263039 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art elements that would render the claims of US patent 9,263,039 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention (priority date: 2005-08-05). Due to the instruction to "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," and the provided text primarily containing the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section which describes the general state of the art rather than listing specific prior art documents by identifier, this analysis will rely on the understanding of the art as presented within the patent's background and common knowledge in the field around the priority date. For the purpose of citation, as the entire patent text is provided as one authoritative block, all direct references to the patent's content will be cited as ``.

1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA)

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) for US9263039 as of its August 5, 2005 priority date would likely possess a Master's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a closely related field, with a specialization in artificial intelligence, natural language processing, speech recognition, human-computer interaction, or software engineering. Alternatively, a Bachelor's degree in these fields combined with several years of practical experience in developing or implementing conversational AI systems, speech interfaces, or complex information retrieval architectures would also be appropriate. Such a POSA would be conversant with contemporary techniques in Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), database querying, system modularity (e.g., using agents), and methods for handling uncertainty and ambiguity, such as probabilistic reasoning or fuzzy logic.

2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

Based on the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section of US9263039, the following elements were known or generally understood in the prior art by 2005:

• Speech Recognition and Natural Language Processing: "Speech recognition has steadily improved in accuracy and today is successfully used in a wide range of applications. Natural language processing has been applied to the parsing of speech queries." This indicates that the core technologies for converting speech to text and interpreting text for queries were established.
• Challenges in Natural Interaction: The patent acknowledges that a "machine's ability to communicate with humans in a natural manner remains a difficult problem." It further notes that "verbal communication, such as a person asking a question or giving a command, typically relies heavily on context and domain knowledge of the target person." In contrast, "machine-based queries (e.g., questions, commands, requests, and/or other types of communications) may be highly structured and may not be inherently natural to the human user."
• Need for a "Complete Environment": The patent states that "current systems do not reliably provide a complete environment for users to submit verbal and/or textual communications through natural language queries that are processed to provide natural responses. There remain a number of significant barriers to creation of a complete speech-based and/or non-speech-based natural language query and response environment." This identifies the problem of lacking a fully integrated, natural-feeling system.
• Handling Imperfect Information and Partial Failure: The patent explicitly aims to overcome these issues, stating in the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" that "The robustness to partial failure is achieved through the use of probabilistic and fuzzy reasoning at several stages of the process." This implies that probabilistic and fuzzy reasoning were recognized techniques for enhancing robustness and dealing with incomplete or uncertain information in various computing contexts.
• User Profiles, Context, and Domain Knowledge: The background implicitly highlights the importance of these for natural human communication, and their absence or insufficient use in prior machine systems. The invention claims to make "maximum use of context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user specific profile data". These were known concepts in various fields of computer science (e.g., personalization, dialogue systems, expert systems).

3. Differences Between the Prior Art and Claimed Invention

Claim 1 of US9263039 defines a system comprising a speech unit interface, a multi-pass ASR module, a parser (using probabilistic/fuzzy methods for context), an event manager, a context description grammar module, a user profile module, an agent module (with domain-specific agents), and a response generator module (using probabilistic/fuzzy methods for generating natural language responses, especially with inconsistent/ambiguous results).

The patent's background establishes that basic speech recognition and natural language parsing were known. The primary differences claimed by the patent lie in the integrated architecture that explicitly combines these with user profiles, a context description grammar, and domain-specific agents, and critically, the explicit application of "probabilistic or fuzzy set decision and matching methods" at multiple points:

1. In the parser, for "identifying a context for the command or the question."
2. In the response generator, for "generating a natural language response... including probabilistic or fuzzy set decision and matching methods to deal with inconsistent, ambiguous, conflicting or incomplete information or responses."

4. Motivation to Combine

A POSA, faced with the problems identified in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" of US9263039, would have been motivated to combine known elements and techniques to achieve a more "complete" and "natural" speech-based interaction environment.

1. Combination of Core Speech/NLP with User Profiles, Context, and Domain Agents: Given that "Speech recognition has steadily improved" and "Natural language processing has been applied to the parsing of speech queries", a POSA would start with a system incorporating these functionalities (let's call this Prior Art A: a generic speech recognition and natural language processing system for interpreting user utterances). To address the acknowledged reliance of human communication on "context and domain knowledge" and to overcome the "significant barriers to creation of a complete speech-based... natural language query and response environment", a POSA would be motivated to integrate:

   • Prior Art B (User Profiles): The use of user profiles for personalization and recalling past interactions was well-known in various human-computer interfaces. Integrating a "user profile module" to store "user specific data, parameters, and session and history information" would be an obvious design choice to make the system more "natural" and tailored to the individual user.
   • Prior Art C (Context Management): To enable more coherent and natural dialogues, a POSA would incorporate context management techniques. This directly addresses the human reliance on context. Implementing this through a "context description grammar module" would be a conventional approach to define and manage conversational state.
   • Prior Art D (Domain-Specific Agents): To handle queries and commands across "multiple domains" effectively and modularly, a POSA would find it obvious to employ "agents" or modules specialized for different domains, as this is a standard software engineering practice for managing complexity and extending system capabilities. The "agent module comprising a plurality of agents, each agent configured to correspond to a domain" reflects this common architectural pattern.
   • The inclusion of an "event manager" is a standard architectural component for coordinating interactions among modules in a complex, multi-threaded system.

2. Application of Probabilistic or Fuzzy Reasoning: Recognizing that natural language utterances inherently contain "imperfect information such as, incomplete thoughts, incomplete sentences, incomplete phrases, slang terminology, repeated words, word variations, synonyms, or other imperfect information", and that results from various sources might be "inconsistent, ambiguous, conflicting or incomplete", a POSA would be strongly motivated to apply established techniques for handling such uncertainties. Prior Art E (Probabilistic/Fuzzy Logic) represents the widely known methodologies for dealing with uncertainty in artificial intelligence and pattern recognition systems by 2005. The patent itself explicitly states that "The robustness to partial failure is achieved through the use of probabilistic and fuzzy reasoning at several stages of the process." This statement reveals the inventors' own recognition that these methods are suitable for achieving robustness. Therefore, a POSA would have found it obvious to apply these known probabilistic or fuzzy set decision and matching methods:

   • To the "parser" for more robust "identif[ication of] a context for the command or the question" when dealing with imperfect or ambiguous input.
   • To the "response generator module" to intelligently "deal with inconsistent, ambiguous, conflicting or incomplete information or responses" when formulating a natural language output, especially when drawing from heterogeneous sources, thereby making the system's responses more "natural" and reliable.

The combination of these known elements (ASR, NLP, user profiles, context management, domain agents, and probabilistic/fuzzy logic) would be a logical and predictable step for a POSA seeking to create a more robust, natural, and complete speech-based interaction system, directly addressing the deficiencies articulated in the patent's own background. The motivation would stem from the desire to overcome these known problems using well-understood tools and architectural patterns.

5. Reasonable Expectation of Success

By 2005, each of the conceptual elements (speech recognition, natural language processing, user profiles, context management, domain-specific modules, and probabilistic/fuzzy logic for handling uncertainty) was individually established and implemented in various forms. Combining these modular components into an integrated system, as described in the patent, would have been within the capabilities of a POSA. The application of probabilistic or fuzzy methods to enhance robustness in areas like context identification and response generation was a recognized approach in research and development, providing a reasonable expectation that such an integration would yield the desired improvements in handling imperfect information and generating natural responses.

Therefore, the claimed invention, particularly Claim 1, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in light of the general state of the art and common knowledge as described in the patent's own background, and the clear motivations to combine these known elements to solve the identified problems.