Member Info for BobsSocks

Also at https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20230113457

https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.202117798281.A&lng=en

Not sure why that did not crop up earlier although it does seem that they requested non-publication and the request may (may not) have been allowed but has just been rescinded so publication has now taken place.

It looks like they may already have received their first rejection and been forced to amend their claims. Normally the USPTO would have published a "Non Final Rejection" document but that does not, as yet, appear to be on file.

Given AS is, repeatedly, unable to report any meaningful metrics I would be inclined to suggest they are not there. The reason why they are not there is because the portfolio companies are sitting in a growing but competitive market but have no WOW factor.

If I read what others are suggesting about...

"-- 97% year-on-year growth in the aggregate value of portfolio companies' annual recurring revenue (ARR) contracts"

correctly then it is just a figure for customer retention. They bought the product. It does the job just as well as what might be available from elsewhere so they continue to use it.

Edited to remove guff...

"Tern's portfolio companies delivered year-on-year growth in revenue of 5%"

Your extra guff is that, along with employee numbers, is an aggregate. One portfolio company might be going great guns but being dragged down by the others. There is no insight.

Overall the wet finger suggests that 97% retention with 5% growth in revenue from an increase of employee count of 66%, I assume that these are mostly SalesDroids, is beyond rubbish.

Again the companies are in competitive markets with no WOW factor. They might do what they say on the tin but everyone is offering similar tins. Also all the talk about the growth in the size of those markets and drooling over the prospects is just dribble. Other competitors will enter those markets because they smell a livelihood. It's just bigger pie divided between more fish.

The portfolio is well past its Unicorn date.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LGGGHOVM1KIHMLF&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

https://mangold.se/en/
https://mb.cision.com/Main/20629/3749241/1977718.pdf

Page 2)

"The products are *awaiting* the results of the patent application and the company has registered its brands which strengthens the position for commercialization.”

Lack of Top Tip to Wyld. The EPO runs something called PACE whereby you can request accelerated processing of your application and spend less waiting time.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/c_vi_2.htm

Becoz... the sooner you get that patent granted the sooner you become a multibagger for your, paid for, Marigold fanbase.

EO&E

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist
https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LGDPNT6C12N745H&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

http://tpo.epo.org/tpo/app/form/?patentRef=EP4104636&locale=en
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_iii_n.htm

Given they have published it you might have to assume that they consider it to be in some way relevant rather than some random shouting down an empty corridor. As a matter of procedure they will, likely...

"11.08.2022 Communication to applicant regarding observations by third parties"

Transmit a copy to the applicants.

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L6KEDZJKLYNMEJG&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

asking whether they wish to comment.

No. Grumble. I may be double wrong. Wyld now claim,

"include a limitation that location mapping takes place at the edge."

Location Mapping at the edge is the inventive step. EDGE-SLAM is location mapping at the edge. Words are the same. The date may be late but the one of the other references is likely to invalidate their claim to inventiveness.

Ooops. My Bad. SLAM, or EDGE-SLAM appears to be about offloading computation from mobile (IoT) devices to The Edge for the purposes of location mapping and visualisation rather than network mapping. Also, whilst the references include earlier citations,

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386901.3389033

it is itself dated June 2020 which is after the February 2020 priority date assigned to the Wyld application.

Unfortunately I am still going to suggest that the idea of offloading computation to The Edge is not conceptually new and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of and consider it for the Wyld use case. Again the result would be that their new submission fails.

Useful to check...

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LFTXXNZU1N15N1H&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Shove that through your OCR software...

.
2. Novelty and Inventive Step
The examiner has already acknowledged that the claims are novel, and it is further submitted that amended claim 1 now includes the limitation that “location mapping is undertaken at the edge, providing the following ways to map location: beacon, connection mapping, and collective positioning” which is novel with respect to all of the cited prior art documents.

Such location mapping at the edge, via beacon, connection mapping and collective positioning is not contemplated by the prior art, and for at least this reason claim 1 as amended is inventive."

You are not allowed to add material so it is worth checking the original application...

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=LFTXXNZU1N15N1H&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Shove that through your OCR software and search on *edge* and you find, Page 6),

"[0028] Preferably, location mapping is undertaken at the edge. Preferably the following ways to map location are provided: GPS/aGPS, Beacon, Connection Mapping, and Collective Positioning."

This is the only reasonable reference they can rely on. They suggest they will remove GPS/aGPS and otherwise amend the description if the examiner approves the amended claims.

Could be good but they have made previous claims about something not been contemplated by the prior art and fallen flat on their faces.

https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=edge+device+mapping&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0

https://github.com/droneslab/edgeslam

"Edge-SLAM is an edge-assisted visual simultaneous localization and mapping. Edge-SLAM adapts Visual-SLAM into edge computing architecture to enable long operation of Visual-SLAM on mobile devices. This is achieved by offloading the computation-intensive modules to the edge. Thus, Edge-SLAM reduces resource usage on the mobile device and keeps it constant. Edge-SLAM is implemented on top of ORB-SLAM2."

Which, I would suggest, seems to be a pretty good description of what they are now claiming as being inventive and as such it has been contemplated in the prior art so once again they fall flat on their faces. Whoops.

I do get the impression that they are struggling. Claim 1) now appears to be the only independent claim. All others are now in effect dependent on Claim 1) apart from Claim 14) however Claim 14) appears to be a repetition of Claim 1). Again they make mention that the examiner has previously considered the content to be novel but in order to have a patent granted both novelty and an inventive step has to be demonstrated. In this case they have chosen to "include a limitation that location mapping takes place at the edge." as that step.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist

29.03.2023 Amended claims filed after receipt of (European) search report
29.03.2023 Amended claims with annotations
29.03.2023 Amendments received before examination

These were ideally due 20.03.23, six months from notification of the results of the examination, 20.09.22. So they are nine days late but, fingers, crossed EPO will permit this and proceed with the examination based on the new/amended claims. I wouldn't care to guess whether they have rescued anything but wet finger suggests EPO might take 2 months to respond so back to twiddling fingers.

Thanks for asking.

As you consistently and deliberately refuse to accept I have no beef with Tern or their portfolio companies although they may get some collateral moans. My beef is with people such as yourself and others who have little to say of any value that cannot be deconstructed as being worthless or otherwise borderline useless beyond blatant ramping in an effort to excuse your continuing losses in an effort to transfer those losses to people who might, for some strange reason, actually believe your fantasy world is based on anything other than your hurt.

Don't forget to ask your mate down the pub to upgrade your printer drivers so it updates its CA certificates on a per printed character basis and also buy him another pint every time he has to come back and put the resolution back down to 200DPI and tell you 600DPI does not work on yours.

"Wyld Networks, the Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity service provider plan to add 5G NB-IoT to existing satellite IoT service. Adding 5G NB-IoT to their current LoRaWAN satellite IoT capability will double Wyld’s addressable market. This also enables the Company to target 5G mobile operators as customers."

Sounds Fruity!1!

"By adding satellite 5G NB-IoT to its existing satellite LoRaWAN portfolio increases Wyld’s addressable market from US$ 670 million to US$ 1.3 billion by 2025. LoRaWAN and 5G NB-IoT technologies represent 83% of all LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Network) connections for IoT."

Nice!1!

"We have to date secured an order intake of approximately SEK 76 million. These orders are for 223,000 Wyld Connect modules which when deployed will generate recuring revenue for the data service of up to US$ 5 per month per Wyld Connect module.”

Monster Excellent Stuff!!11!!

So you have sold 223,000 Wyld connect modules for £7.6 million and these are all field upgradable from Lorawan to 5G?

What...? They are not because the technologies are entirely different. That looks a bit we are behind the curve sorry to suck so much.

Of course that might be slightly unfair. I suppose you are reacting to market trends and developments in order to pretend to remain relevant but using the wrong words to explain yourselves.

Oh. Of course we have to point out that Kudelski is running their code on ST product, STM32H5, as an ST partner, just like DA and just like, as recently announced, Avnet.

Of course the folks over on ADVFN will insist that DA is the only ST partner and everyone else is actually white labelling Key-Scaler on ST product as pretend partners because DA actually own ST and NASA but there are non-disclosure agreements in place with Tern's $Bazzillions being parked elsewhere in preparation for the massive EV re-rate at NAV^EV^3.

It's all very Dunning Kruger/Stockholm Syndrome

"Sector interest

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/KUDELSKI-SA-6096412/news/Kudelski-IoT-and-STMicroelectronics-Deliver-Next-Generation-In-Field-Device-Provisioning-and-Securi-43265632/

Link may or may not work depending on LSE

"So a competitor:

Kudelski's mkt cap (chf 103m), which is £91m

Kudelski's website:
https://www.kudelski-iot.com/"

From the original article

The Kudelski Group is headquartered in Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland, and Phoenix (AZ), USA with offices in 32 countries around the world. For more information, please visit www.nagra.com.

the link goes to https://www.nagra.com/ so it looks like Kudelski is a division of Nagra, AKA Nagravision SA

cambradjones gets a hard on

"That tell you how ridiculously undervalued tern is considering da is only one of the investee's."

Which is a bit of a shame given Tern who have a slice of DA have no patents whilst DA has a few dying ones that should have been amortised to zero whereas Nagravision who count Kudelski as a division of the parent company have...

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=singleline&query=NAGRAVISION

absolute shedloads of stuff going on.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=singleline&query=FVRVS+LTD&Submit=Search

The list comprises a number of US patents which may have been granted. If you dig deeper you may find some applications, perhaps for the same, being sought under EPO and WIPO where the game gets harder.

Don't get me wrong DA, Wyld and FVR may be players in their fields by virtue of knowing their stuff and selling solutions but Patents should be taken with a pinch of salt.

After all according to the Ladz on ADVFN everyone is using DA because otherwise they would be doing nothing. DA said So, and yet the company has not published accounts indicating they are worth $Bazzillions so you are forced to assume everyone is doing nothing.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04676191/filing-history

23 Aug 2022 Unaudited abridged accounts made up to 31 December 2021

"Intangible fixed assets and amortisation policy

Intangible assets are initially recognised at cost... The estimated useful lives range is as follows: Intellectual property - 10 years."

https://www.deviceauthority.com/patents/

The majority of these are already past their 10 year date and should have been amortised to zero. The remainder are worth zero next year.

However Device Authority claims these as a Fixed Investment. Item 5) Having previously stated...

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04676191/filing-history?page=2

14 Oct 2021 Amended total exemption full accounts made up to 31 December 2020

"5. Fixed Investments

On 19 April 2016, the Company aquired DeviceAuthority Inc, whereby DeviceAuthority Inc agreed to assign all of its intellectual property to Device Authority Limited. Consideration for the assignment was satisfied by the swap of shares to the value of £6,386,628 by the company to DeviceAuthority Inc share holders."

Mr Darron Antill should read those two documents again given he signed them and explain why he is overvaluing his company to the tune of £6,386,628

Given I am a pair obviously both of us have a close friend.

Just in case.

My interpretation may be incorrect and I should mention that it is not over until the Fat Lady Publishes an "Application deemed to be withdrawn" notice.

Ooops. My transcription skills failed me, "within a non-extendable period of 6 months"

Documents here,

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L7ZBOWRT8ZYR5IO&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

"You are invited to correct any deficiencies noted in the written opinion of the International Searching Authority of in the International Preliminary Examination Report, or in the explanations to the supplementary international search report and to ammend the description, claims and any drawings within a non-extendable period after notification of the present invitation.

Should you not comply with or comment on this invitation within the time limit, the application will be deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with Rule 161(1) EPC."

Demand made on 20-09-22
No response as of today.

https://howlongagogo.com/date/2022/september/20