Member Info for BobsSocks

All may not be as it seems.

https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/science-and-technology-directorate-interschutz-2022

Note that the quote is not directly from dhs.gov but rather it is a mention of the technology used in/with the equipment supplied by a third party,

https://www.breeze-technologies.de/blog/breeze-technologies-selected-for-long-term-deployment-of-wildfire-sensors-by-us-department-of-homeland-security/

The most you can say is that breeze technologies have used Keyscaler in their products. As such the department with which the product has been trialed have been exposed to Keyscaler.

There is no direct endorsement from US Homeland Security for Keyscaler.

End of ramp.

It is however interesting to note that there are certain, desperate, entities who will grasp at the slightest tenuous hint of such exposure and unashamedly go out of their way to blow it out of all proportion.

I am not trying to understand the lack of transparency/clarity I am just stating it is there. I note you have, once again, resorted to making claims based on the reporting of DA UK to distort or otherwise discredit others information, in this case that Bloomberg can have no data. The data from the tweet appears to have been published from a Bloomberg Terminal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal As I have already suggested the Bloomberg figures likely relate to DA US but you can't have that because it does not fit your world view. In fact the majority if not all of the drivel you post is a twisted distortion of reality to suit your purpose that repeatedly descends into personal attacks. A trait which those of your ilk regularly mimic.

It might be worth considering that Bloomberg could be quoting figures they have for the US division of DA as registered in Delaware and not the UK entity listed at companies house. As such the figures may/will differ along with the accounting and reporting periods. AFAIK DA UK do not have to, have not, reported profit and loss figures in the UK because the company is not of an appropriate size. The situation may differ in the US and as such perhaps Bloomberg has access to those figures. If you wished to get hold of them via Delaware yourself you are SOL unless you go through a US third party who can pay for access with a cheque drawn on a US bank account. It is all part of the lack of transparency/clarity.

Sorry. Slight oversight. There are three tests. Novelty, Inventive Step an Industrial Applicability.

I might file a patent on a shipyard mouse trap that drops the ship under construction onto a mouse beneath it based on sensing the clicking sound of the mouses claws on the dry dock floor.

It sounds novel and is being applied to an industrial environment but it is likely that prior art includes dropping a heavy weight on the mouse. It's also just silly.

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

12.05.2022 International preliminary examination report - points I-VIII

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L2PPOLJQD1MA5H4&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Box No V on Page 2

The application is apparently novel and has industrial applicability but fails in respect of an inventive step based either on the existence of prior art or a consideration of what a person of skill in the art, posita, would have done presented with the same problem or otherwise be considered obvious.

The observation was submitted just prior to publication of the latest opinion, rejection, where Wyld were claiming an inventive step based on the use of Game Theory. The submission gives an example of prior art, Jan 2011, which references the use of Game Theory and in particular battery power and signal strength as input criteria. The examiner used other considerations, D1-D4 elsewhere.

No I am not invested and this is not being done for the purposes of making a decision as to whether to do so. However if I were to invest it would not be in the expectation that Wyld are likely to gain any meaningful protection on their technology. As you might guess I do not consider it to be very likely.

I am also doing this because it is information that would be considered to be publicly available but others are most certainly not aware of its existence and have to rely on Wyld to give a fair picture of likelihood which they are most certainly not doing.

https://attachment.news.eu.nasdaq.com/a3d76ca049ee5784db72ace1edf527e95

Your enticement to invest:

"Wyld Networks strengthened its technical and commercial position, protecting its IP and brand, with a published patent application for its cutting-edge technology and secured trademarks for the Wyld brand."

The warped caveat:

"Intellectual property rights

The Group’s continued operation depends to a certain extent on protecting its technology through patents or other intellectual property rights. The field in which the Group is developing its product is undergoing rapid technological development. There is thus a risk that new technologies will be developed that will circumvent the Group’s
­patents."

The Translation:

Someone else may have already thought of our cutting edge technology but ¯\_(?)_/¯

https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=EP.2021053561.W&lng=en

17/05/2022

There is no obligation for Wyld to comment or otherwise respond. There is no obligation on the offices to take the observations into account.

PCT Administrative Instructions Part 8.

https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/texts/pdf/ai.pdf

Within this forum there is only one.

Still,

"But while 80% of security startups may not be necessary, that doesn’t mean Mandia thinks they will all fail.

“There's probably a higher percentage of them that are good investments,” he said. “My idea of success probably is more from the practitioner’s mind -- [that] they've got the solution I would pick. And that's hard for a startup.” Google is expected to close its $5.4 billion acquisition of Mandiant later this year."

No doubt Google have not blown the whole acquisition budget and still have $3 billion in the kitty to blow on your first choice.

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/security-startups-vc-kevin-mandia

"Among the many complexities of cybersecurity in 2022 is the fact that businesses have a lot of choices when it comes to new technologies to try. Too many choices, in fact, according to Kevin Mandia, the founder and CEO of cybersecurity powerhouse Mandiant.

“When you look at all the startups [in security], I feel like probably 80% of them shouldn't be there,” Mandia said in an interview with Protocol."

"In protecting our Intellectual Property (IP) we submitted our patent application which has moved through the internationalisation phase and into the nationalisation phase."

Progress of the application is according to timescales defined within the PCT. As far as I am aware the application has not yet entered the national phase but will do so in August of this year,

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L2RCVT7K8VRJ8QS&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

From the first page,

"4. REMINDER

The applicant must enter the national phase before each elected Office by performing certain acts (filing translations and paying national fees) within 30 months of the priority date (or later in some Offices) (Article 39(1) (see also the reminder sent by the International Bureau with Form PCT/IB/301)."

It is currently stuck at the International Phase with Wyld attempting and failing to gain a favourable opinion as to the validity of the application.

I also note that in the document provided,

https://mb.cision.com/Main/20640/3566603/1579524.pdf

Wyld make various references to this application without mentioning the lack of and indeed negative progress to date.

"Auditor’s responsibility

Our objective concerning the audit of the administration, and thereby our opinion about discharge from liability, is to obtain audit evidence to assess with a reasonable degree of assurance whether any member of the Board of Directors or the Managing director in any material respect:

• has undertaken any action or been guilty of any omission which can give rise to liability to the company, or

• in any other way has acted in contravention of the Companies Act, the Annual Accounts Act or the Articles of Association."

I would not be so hardcore.

Wyld have already suggested that they are insulated from supply chain problems but you have to assume that they are not relying on a job lot of Amiho stock and their firmware solution is easily translated to other silicon.

You are quite right to discount my meanderings over the progress of the patent application given Wyld are getting on with the job of developing and seeing the adoption of their systems. Of course what I really meant to say that it does not surprise me to see you ignore the issue and point to another squirrel.

However it might be wise to consider the wider impact of their inability to corner the market in terms of IPR.

Note that Wyld are supposedly intrinsically tied to LoraWan being a member of that particular alliance. There is a similar parallel to the association of DA with FIDO along with the misplaced suggestions that DA also own that space. In both cases, FIDO and LoraWan, the alliances have rules over the incorporation of third party IPR in their adopted standards.

FIDO:

https://media.fidoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FIDO-IPR-flowchart-v4-W3C.pdf

LoraWan:

https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LA-IPR-Policy.pdf

Specifically if a member wishes to have their technology included in any of the adopted standards they have to relinquish any rights associated with their IPR.

In respect of this Wyld have announced the formation of a consortium with other partners,

https://news.cision.com/wyld-networks/r/wyld-networks-and-partners-form-global-consortium-to-advance-iot-network-coverage,c3484378
https://senetco.com/about/news/senet-eutelsat-trakassure-and-wyld-networks-team-to-deliver-first-to-market-interoperable-terrestrial-and-satellite-lorawan-network-services/

Again first to market is good stuff and Wyld along with their partners do have the expertise and technology to see this thing through. However a read through shows that whilst the technology is LoraWan compatible and based on that technology Wyld also claim to bring *unique* capabilities to the implementation.

If Wyld and their partners are seeking to do this based on IPR then the concept of a consortium outside of LoraWan based on divergent technology might be a source of concern to the LoraWan Alliance itself.

Business may be business but playing dog in the manger whilst biting the hand that feeds you is not exactly friendly behaviour especially if your bone is the same as everyone else's and can be copied.

Nice thought but I very much doubt they would care to comment. As I have suggested here and elsewhere it is my view that this is an application for the purposes of enticing investment with little to no expectation of taking it through to grant.

The original application was made via the UKPTO on 12th February 2020.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB2001939.4

That particular date coincides with their award of a grant from the Department of Innovation for the project with London Underground. In order to gain that grant they would have had to make a supporting proposal which would likely have included the hook of just such an application.

They had to file under the PCT within one year in order to claim priority from that application which they did on 12th February 2021. The documents are subject to publication 18 months after the first priority date which is why...

You can download a copy of that application as the priority document for this most recent action under the PCT from here,

https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=EP.2021053561.W&lng=en

Second from the top 19.08.2021 Priority Document.

Page 4) of the PDF Item 8) They did not pay the application fee.
Page 5) of the PDF Item 10) They did not make a request for search or substantive examination.

[That's £310 in todays money]

My assumption is that having not made such requests with the original filing they did not do so at a later date and gained no insight prior to applying under the PCT as to the likelihood of moving to grant or ignored such advice if it was given. The UKPTO would have flagged exactly the same issues that the EPO have hammered them with and.... they do not care.

One thing that may be interesting, assuming any of this is of interest, is that they responded within two days to the previous rejection of 1st of March. If they are similarly on the ball then their reply to this one should drop next week.

In respect of that their original request, based in part on a data type, landed end of December last year. The rejection came 1st of March, three months later, and given their rapid reply the implication is that they had the next one lined up and ready to go in the expectation of failure.

The problem all along is that their original specification which they have to stick to was in effect a description of a wishlist for something that is generally known which contained no real detail of the, inventive, methods whereby the wishlist would be achieved. They are now left with plucking buzzwords from their wishlist in the hope that something will stick.

Also note that the PCT are running to a more or less three month timescale for their responses and, once again, they need to enter the national phase by August of this year. In effect that gives them one last throw of the dice to gain a favourable response or they will have to go to the contracting states with an opinion that says they do not have anything of value.

They have in effect run out of time.

It might be a little hard to follow but the latest rejection from the PCT is in response to their response of the 3rd of March as included in the annex.

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

Documents dated 12th May 2022.

Again all independent claims have been rejected as being non-inventive. Subsequent dependent claims add no material considered to be inventive as being obvious to a person of skill in the art.

Reference is made to the 30 month time limit from the original priority date for entry into the national phase. That would be in August of this year.

Ideally they should attempt to gain a favourable report on patentability prior to this date, something they have not as yet achieved. Of course there is no requirement that they do so. They can just carry on regardless and cross their fingers but it is extremely likely that the contracting authorities will take note of the opinion of the PCT and reject the application themselves.

"Incidentally, where or who is this info coming from?"

Other than the interpretation it is all available on line from the relevant authorities according to their procedures.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21709349&lng=en&tab=doclist
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=EP.2021053561.W&lng=en
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021160867&tab=PCTDOCUMENTS
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/069897267/publication/WO2021160867A1?q=pn%3DWO2021160867

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

appears to be the most up to date.

I would not be inclined to be so generous.

Wyld knew back in June of last year that the application had been rejected.
Wyld knew back in March of this year that the application had been rejected.

Wyld will likely know in June that the application has once again been rejected.

and yet Wyld have recently mentioned this patent application in reference to their listing on the OTC as an enticement to invest.

"So are they using a patents lawyer or is it a naff DIY job? I mean, wtf?"

Follow up post suggests that they are. This is the response from their agent to the most recent dismissal.

hTTps://register.epo.org/application?documentId=L0BDPQ0P12WTRP8&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

It would seem that rather than relying a particular data type they are now using the mention of an Evolutionary Game Theory model as the argument for novelty...

3) Novelty and Inventive Step

The applicant agrees with the examiner that the present claims are novel with respect to the prior art. (narrator: The examiner does not appear to have made any such statement) In particular, the feature that "wherein a device can advertise and browse at the same time and wherein the device chooses to advertise or browse using Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) to categorize whether a device should operate on a selfish or altruistic strategy whereby a fitness function is defined to model a game for the network, the fitness function describing a payoff each device will receive fro the strategy it follows, wherein an input to define the fitness function is at least one of battery strength and/or signal strength to devices or maturity of the network" is neither known nor derivable from the prior art of record.

The above paragraph is a blatant example of blowing smoke. A simple search on "Network Optimization Game Theory" throws up,

hTTps://www.researchgate.net/publication/233790385_Game_Theory_Application_for_Performance_Optimisation_in_Wireless_Networks

If you download the PDF you will find the paper specifically references the use of Game Theory to control, among other criteria, both battery and bandwidth usage in a Wireless Network. The article is dated January 2011 and therefore represents an example of prior art that the applicant, Wyld, as experts in the field completely failed to find or rather chose not to mention.

Note that the agent is speaking as instructed by the client. The agent probably also thinks they are spouting bull but if the client wishes to pay them money...

They really are not doing themselves any favours by trying to pull the wool given such behaviour is only going to make the examiner more vigilant the next time they try it on

Well there's a surprise.

Publish some meaningful information including an informed opinion along with linked evidence for others to draw their own conclusions and up pops Rhodi to prattle on about the people they have on filter because you just know that they did not read the message, rofl, but feel the need to respond without any meaningful challenge.

#309548

Anyone know why the Wyld sp has tanked ?? Has something gone wrong with the trials ??

A bit late so not necessarily the reason however the Wyld SP did start dropping about the beginning of March so maybe...

Wyld Patent Application Update. Gnashing of Teeth.

Apologies for not paying attention. I had gained the impression that not much would be happening until about August when the refiled application would be published along with the considerations of the examining body so I wasn't checking. However it turns out there were a set of new entries added to file at the beginning of March.

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

The ones of interest are those published on the 1st of March and, assuming this is the new attempt, I get the impression that they relied on the specification as previously submitted but modified the claims.

Not only have they failed to introduce any clarity as to what they are trying to claim a patent on they have also committed the sin of attempting to add subject matter within the claims that is not supported by the specification. No clarity, added subject matter, no inventive step.

Read it and weep....

hTTps://register.epo.org/application?documentId=KXG8KWXA1IHQ0QF&appnumber=EP21709349&showPdfPage=all&proc=

Specifically,

2) The amendment filed online on 13.12.2021 introduces subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 34(2)(b) PCT.

Support for the newly filed claims 1-24 is given by the applicant based on original claim 16, and furthermore in paragraph [0145] to specify "wherein the policy consists of allowed data types and ranges, specific values of data, and a digital signature".

The paragraph [0145] referred to for support does not disclose any of the wording of the amended claims, thus the new set of claims is considered to introduce subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed.

Thus, the opinion has been established as if the amendments had not been made.

Basically the examiner tossed their hard work in the bin and sent them back to square one whilst having an orgasm.

Again it is my opinion that this application has been made for the purposes of enticing investment without any real expectation of moving it forward to grant and should be treated as such. Otherwise they are genuine but otherwise completely delusional.

Mr Williamson would be better off growing the business and expanding its user base as he has been doing rather than prattling on about his failed patent application. Put it to bed and move on.

...

I was a bit gobsmacked to hear the bloke from SVV happily burble on about 'play to earn', gamers hate the idea, and cryptocurrency, tech bro ponzi schemes anyone? I certainly would not be parking my money near anyone with such a vacant drooling mindset.