IPR Details
Sangam Kumar Das' Statement about IPR related to draft-das-agentic-effectuation-boundary, draft-das-drip-uas-act-finality, draft-das-execution-finality-ai-interoperability, d...
Note: Updates to IPR disclosures must only be made by authorized representatives of the original submitters. Updates will automatically be forwarded to the current Patent Holder's Contact and to the Submitter of the original IPR disclosure.
I. Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
| Holder legal name | Sangam Kumar Das |
|---|
II. Patent Holder's Contact for License Application
| Holder contact name | Sangam Das |
|---|---|
| Holder contact email | info@sangamdas.com |
| Holder contact info |
Balasore , Odisha |
III. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal Belief Triggered this Disclosure
| Name | Sangam Das |
|---|---|
| info@sangamdas.com | |
| Other info |
IV. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates
|
V. Disclosure of Patent Information
i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by RFC 8179
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
| Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s) |
Number: WO2026150382 Patent / Technical Lineage The following international patent applications form part of the technical body of work underlying my present and future IETF submissions. Applications already examined by the International Searching Authority PCT/IB2025/058743 — Examined PCT/IB2026/053385 — ALF-PCT — Examined Other related international applications PCT/IB2026/054453 — CVID-PCT-1 Some applications in this second group have also received ISA search results or written opinions, while others remain at different stages of the international procedure. The withdrawn application is intentionally excluded from this statement. The international applications are also backed by a broader priority and technical-development chain comprising more than 32 Indian provisional patent applications. In addition: Indian Patent Application No. 202631112226 These applications and priority filings contain different inventions, embodiments, architectures, claim scopes, industries, enforcement mechanisms, and implementation paths. They should not be treated as identical filings or as having identical claim scope. Mothership Scale The earlier technical lineage, including PCT/IB2026/053385 — ALF-PCT, was subsequently developed and substantially expanded into PCT/IB2026/055615 — THE DAS PROTOCOLS / Mothership and related filings. The Mothership comprises approximately: 8,598 pages Distinct Technical Content — Not Mere Repetition The size of the Mothership and related PCT portfolio is not the result of simply repeating the same disclosure across thousands of pages. The applications contain distinct embodiments, distinct implementation scenarios, different enforcement locations, different threat models, different technical workflows, different state-transition sequences, and different industry-specific architectures. The disclosures include substantial embodiment-specific technical material such as: pseudocode Accordingly, individual PCT applications and individual portions of the Mothership may implement the common execution-finality principle through materially different technical mechanisms and workflows. A telecom embodiment, AI-agent embodiment, payment embodiment, satellite embodiment, hardware-enforcement embodiment, privacy embodiment, or distributed-system embodiment may therefore contain different pseudocode, different execution paths, different validation predicates, different protected states, and different effectuation boundaries. The common architectural principle does not mean that the underlying disclosures are technically repetitive or interchangeable. The Mothership is therefore substantially broader than any single IETF specification, working-group deliverable, or industry-specific standardization effort. |
|---|
B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?:
| Has patent pending | No |
|---|
VI. Licensing Declaration
The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification ("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such specification, is as follows(select one licensing declaration option only):
| Licensing | Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee |
|---|---|
| Licensing information, comments, notes, or URL for further information |
B. IETF FRAND AND NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSING POSITION Industry-Wise / Specification-Wise Position My intended IETF licensing position is based on the particular specification or industry-specific technical profile actually adopted through the applicable IETF process. Where implementation of an adopted IETF specification necessarily requires one or more patent claims from this technical family: **Necessary Patent Claims for that specification → FRAND / non-exclusive** The approach is intended to operate industry-wise and specification-wise. Relevant specifications or profiles may concern, for example: AI / Agentic AI The relevant FRAND commitment therefore applies only to the specific Necessary Patent Claims required for implementation of the particular adopted IETF specification or standardized profile. The commitment is intended to be non-exclusive. No individual implementer would obtain exclusivity merely because Necessary Patent Claims are made available under the applicable IETF-related FRAND commitment. Mothership Limitation The Mothership contains approximately: 8,598 pages It is substantially broader than any single industry-specific IETF specification. Therefore: Entire Mothership ≠ FRAND Entire patent family ≠ FRAND Every embodiment ≠ FRAND Every claim ≠ automatically FRAND Disclosure of the Mothership, a related PCT application, an Indian priority application, or another member of the technical family to the IETF does not automatically place the complete application, disclosure, priority family, embodiment set, or broader portfolio under FRAND. Only the Necessary Patent Claims actually required to implement the relevant adopted IETF specification are intended to fall within the corresponding FRAND commitment. Broader Priority Chain The international portfolio is supported by more than 32 Indian provisional patent applications covering different stages of technical development, embodiments, architectures, implementation paths, and industry-specific applications. The existence of those priority applications does not mean that every disclosed feature, provisional embodiment, or later claim automatically becomes subject to an IETF FRAND commitment. The same principle applies: **Necessary Patent Claims for the relevant adopted IETF specification → FRAND / non-exclusive** **Other subject matter → outside that specific commitment** Voluntary Royalty-Free Sovereign / Public-Safety Licensing Position Separately from the IETF FRAND commitment, I am willing to consider granting royalty-free licences to sovereign states, governments, and public authorities for strictly non-commercial public-interest and public-safety uses. Potential qualifying uses may include: public safety This is a voluntary licensing position only and does not itself grant any licence. Any royalty-free permission would arise only: upon written request and through a separate written agreement with the relevant sovereign state, government, ministry, agency, public authority, or other authorised public body. The written agreement may define: applicable patent rights The royalty-free permission would be limited to the expressly authorised non-commercial sovereign or public-interest purpose. It would not automatically extend to: commercial exploitation This sovereign/public-interest licensing position is separate from the IETF FRAND commitment and does not modify the licensing terms applicable to ordinary commercial implementers of an IETF specification. Outside the Relevant Standard Where not necessary to implement the applicable adopted specification, the following may remain outside the relevant IETF FRAND commitment: different industry implementations Such claims retain their independent licensing and commercial status. The intended distinction is: **Relevant industry-specific IETF specification + Necessary Patent Claims → FRAND / non-exclusive** **Broader Mothership + other industries + optional / proprietary / non-standardized embodiments → outside that specific FRAND commitment** Indian Application and Future PCT Indian Patent Application No. 202631112226 is intended to follow the same principle if subject matter from that application later becomes relevant to an adopted IETF specification. If a related PCT application is subsequently filed, the resulting PCT application number may be added to the applicable IETF IPR disclosure. Again: **Necessary Patent Claims for the applicable adopted specification → FRAND / non-exclusive** **Remaining subject matter → not automatically included in that commitment** Status of Rights The referenced filings contain pending patent applications and pending patent claims. Nothing in this statement represents that: the claims have already been granted; Essentiality depends on the relationship between the eventual applicable patent claim and the requirements of the relevant adopted specification. Overall Position Technical origin Independent inventor; no external technical team, no external financial backing, and international-stage filings and examination responses prepared without patent-attorney assistance. Priority base More than 32 Indian provisional patent applications supporting the broader technical lineage. Common technical principle Computation is not authority. ISA position For claims actually searched and assessed in the relevant examined PCT applications, novelty was identified. Claims not searched, including those excluded from search because of lack-of-unity findings, are not included in that statement. Inventive-step position Inventive-step objections have been challenged through personally prepared ISA rebuttals / responses and Chapter II / IPEA proceedings where applicable, without patent-attorney assistance. IETF standardization (Industry-specific) Necessary Patent Claims required for the applicable adopted industry-specific IETF specification → FRAND AND non-exclusive. Sovereign / public-safety use Strictly non-commercial sovereign or public-interest use → may be considered royalty-free upon written request and through a separate written agreement. Broader portfolio Other industries, embodiments, alternative implementations, proprietary deployments, and claims not necessary for that specification → outside that specific FRAND commitment. The objective is to support open technical standardization and genuine public-interest use without converting the substantially broader Mothership, its extensive embodiment set, the underlying Indian priority chain, or the wider patent portfolio into a portfolio-wide FRAND or unrestricted royalty-free commitment. International Searching Authority / IPEA — Current Examination Position International Searching Authority search reports and/or written opinions have now been issued for multiple applications in this portfolio. Novelty For claims that were actually searched and assessed by the ISA, novelty was identified. This statement is deliberately limited to claims actually searched and assessed. In some applications, the ISA did not search every claim because it raised lack-of-unity / multiple-invention findings. Accordingly: Claims actually searched and assessed by the ISA → novelty identified. Claims not searched because of lack of unity or other search limitations → no novelty representation is made here. For PCT/IB2026/055615 — THE DAS PROTOCOLS / Mothership, the claims actually searched and assessed by the ISA were identified as novel. The Mothership itself contains more than 200 claims, although this does not mean that every one of those claims was necessarily searched where the ISA applied unity limitations. For PCT/IB2026/056058, novelty was identified for the claims examined by the ISA, including the claim set addressed in the corresponding written opinion. Inventive Step The principal substantive objections raised against searched claims have concerned: Inventive step / obviousness rather than lack of novelty. I have contested those objections. The rebuttals address, among other matters: mosaicing or reconstruction from separate prior-art references; hindsight reasoning; absence of teaching or motivation to combine; the distinction between what a skilled person could combine and what the skilled person would have combined; absence of a demonstrated technical path from the cited references to the claimed architecture; and whether the cited references genuinely teach the claimed combination rather than individual components in isolation. These rebuttals and objections were prepared personally, without patent-attorney assistance. Chapter II / IPEA proceedings have already been initiated where applicable, and the relevant submissions were likewise prepared personally. For applications where Chapter II / IPEA action remains available but has not yet been completed, the corresponding action may be taken within the applicable procedural period. All referenced patent applications and claims remain pending. ISA findings, applicant rebuttals, Chapter II Demands, and IPEA proceedings do not themselves constitute patent grant or a final determination of validity or patentability. Common Technical Principle Although the applications cover different inventions, industries, embodiments, and implementations, the IETF work derived from this technical family follows a common architectural principle: Computation is not authority. Successful computation, authentication, identity verification, possession of a credential or token, generation of an AI output, receipt of an authorization decision, consent, software instruction, policy approval, or other upstream validation should not necessarily, by itself, make a consequential act externally effective. The common architectural direction is: **Proposed / computed / authorized act → remains non-effective Depending on the particular specification or implementation, the applicable conditions may include: exact-act / parameter binding; current authorization state; protected policy state; freshness; revocation; replay protection; single-use or bounded authority; generation / fencing state; cumulative limits or budgets; execution-boundary binding; reconstruction of the actual pending consequence; authorized-versus-actual comparison; atomic or crash-consistent state transition; fail-closed handling; alternate-path / bypass prevention. Different IETF documents may apply this common principle across different technical environments, including: AI / Agentic AI Terminology, protocol format, implementation layer, enforcement location, and industry-specific mechanisms may differ. The common principle remains: A system may compute, authenticate, authorize, propose, or prepare an operation without that fact alone constituting final authority for the resulting consequence. |
Note: The individual submitting this template represents and warrants that he or she is authorized by the Patent Holder to agree to the above-selected licensing declaration.
VII. Contact Information of Submitter of this Form
| Submitter name | Sangam Das |
|---|---|
| Submitter email | info@sangamdas.com |
VIII. Other Notes
| Additional notes |
Independent Inventor / Self-Filing Disclosure This technical and patent work has been developed and pursued independently. No external technical team. The same independent approach has also applied to the international examination responses. Where ISA inventive-step objections have been received, the technical rebuttals, objections, informal comments, responses, and supporting arguments were prepared personally without patent-attorney assistance. Where Chapter II proceedings have already been initiated, the applicable Demand / IPEA submissions and related rebuttal material were likewise prepared and filed personally, without patent-attorney assistance. Where further Chapter II / IPEA action remains procedurally available or pending, the applicable action may be taken within the relevant time limits. This disclosure is provided for transparency regarding the origin, preparation, prosecution, and technical development of the work. My primary motivation is not monetary return, but the possibility of meaningful technical change. AI is evolving extremely quickly, and I believe safety mechanisms—especially for critical systems—should evolve with comparable urgency. I respectfully ask the community not to interpret the large number of documents I have submitted in a short period as spam. The more than 40 submissions reflect an effort to document different technical paths, threat models, and possible preventive mechanisms while there is still time to consider them. The reason I have chosen a FRAND licensing position, rather than offering all relevant rights without compensation, is also practical: this work has been researched, developed, filed, and prosecuted using my own personal resources, and continued research, patent prosecution, testing, and future innovation require funding. Any reasonable licensing income can help support further independent technical work and the development of additional safety mechanisms. The main purpose remains to show that technical solutions may exist, to invite open scrutiny and improvement, and to encourage preventive safeguards before emerging risks become much harder to address. Monetary return is not the primary objective; enabling continued innovation and helping safety mechanisms keep pace with rapidly evolving AI is. |
|---|
Only those sections of the relevant entry form where the submitter provided information are displayed above.