US 9531665

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 9,531,665.

Title: Information messaging system

Assignee: The patent was originally assigned to "Individual." However, extensive litigation activity indicates the current entity asserting the patent is Contactwave LLC. According to the USPTO assignment database, the patent was assigned to MIRA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC. on October 9, 2024, and subsequently to CONTACTWAVE LLC on October 30, 2024.

Inventors: Nitesh Ratnakar

Filing Date: February 10, 2015

Issue Date: December 27, 2016

Abstract:
A method of transmitting contact information to an approved mobile communication device includes receiving an input representative of desired contact information located on a first web page and an input representative of the identity of a desired mobile communication device. The method also includes saving information representative of the desired contact information in a contact information database. The method also includes determining whether the desired mobile communication device is an approved device and transmitting to the desired mobile communication device information representative of a notification to send the information representative of the desired contact information. The method also includes receiving an input from the desired mobile communication device information representative of an acceptance to receive the information representative of the desired contact information, and transmitting to the desired mobile communication device information representative of the desired contact information.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method performed by a server for sending messages from different vendors to a mobile user. The process involves:

1. Sending a message from a first vendor to a mobile user.
2. Receiving confirmation that the user accepted the first vendor's message.
3. After verifying this acceptance, the server then sends a message from a second, different vendor to that same user.

Essentially, a user's acceptance of a message from one vendor acts as a trigger or permission for the system to send a message from another vendor.

Independent Claim 7: This claim describes the server system itself, configured to perform the method outlined in Claim 1. It details a server with one or more processors and memory storing a software application. This application manages mobile user accounts and vendor accounts and is programmed to:

1. Send a message from a first vendor to a mobile user.
2. Receive and verify that the user accepted the first vendor's message.
3. Only after this verification, send a message from a second vendor to that user.

This claim focuses on the physical or virtual server infrastructure that enables the messaging process described in the first claim.

---

Disclaimer: This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal status of this patent should be independently verified. As of the date of this analysis, no records of proceedings before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for this specific patent were found.

Litigation History of US Patent 9,531,665

As of May 12, 2026, US patent 9,531,665, assigned to Contactwave LLC, has been asserted in multiple patent infringement lawsuits. The plaintiff in these cases, Contactwave LLC, is a patent assertion entity that focuses on licensing and enforcing its intellectual property without offering a commercial product. A review of court records indicates a pattern of litigation followed by early resolution, often through voluntary dismissal by Contactwave.

Below is a list of known litigation involving this patent:

1. ContactWave LLC v. Macy's, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00989
• Filing Date: December 2, 2024
• Status/Outcome: The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by ContactWave LLC on January 9, 2026. This dismissal permanently prevents ContactWave from re-asserting claims from this patent against Macy's.

2. ContactWave LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00993
• Filing Date: December 2, 2024
• Status/Outcome: This case was closed on January 9, 2026, following a voluntary dismissal with prejudice by ContactWave LLC. The dismissal bars any future infringement claims from this patent by ContactWave against Nordstrom.

3. ContactWave LLC v. TripAdvisor, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01187
• Filing Date: September 24, 2025
• Status/Outcome: The case was terminated on January 9, 2026, after ContactWave filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice.

4. ContactWave LLC v. Kayak Software Corporation

• Jurisdiction: Not specified in available documents, but filed in September 2025.
• Case Number: Not specified in available documents.
• Filing Date: September 24, 2025
• Status/Outcome: ContactWave LLC voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on October 21, 2025, a mere 27 days after the initial filing. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs.

No records of appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for this specific patent have been identified. The consistent strategy of filing suits followed by dismissals with prejudice suggests that settlements were likely reached, or that Contactwave LLC chose not to proceed after an initial assessment of the defendants' responses.

Proceedings Overview

As of May 12, 2026, there have been zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) filed against US patent 9,531,665. The patent's claims remain entirely untested before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which presents a clean slate for a defendant considering a validity challenge.

Strategic Summary

The absence of any PTAB challenges against US patent 9,531,665 is a significant strategic data point. Despite a documented history of assertion in district court since late 2024, no accused infringer has yet sought to invalidate the patent's claims at the USPTO.

• Claim Status: All claims of the '665 patent, including independent claims 1 and 7, are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial.
• Estoppel Landscape: For a company currently facing an assertion from Contactwave LLC, the estoppel landscape is completely open. No prior art or invalidity arguments are precluded under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) because no prior IPRs have been filed. A defendant would be the first to bring a challenge and would have the full universe of prior art patents and printed publications at its disposal.
• Pattern Signals: The patent has been asserted by a patent assertion entity, Contactwave LLC, which has a pattern of filing suits that resolve relatively quickly through voluntary dismissals with prejudice. This litigation pattern, combined with the lack of PTAB filings, could suggest that the defendants have so far found it more economically viable to settle early rather than engage in a costly validity fight in either district court or at the PTAB. There is no indication that a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents has been involved.

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant facing a demand letter or complaint citing US patent 9,531,665, the immediate takeaway is that a PTAB challenge is a fully available defensive option.

• No PTAB Activity: It must be stated plainly: no inter partes review (IPR) or other AIA proceeding has been filed against this patent. The patent's validity has not been vetted by the PTAB's expert administrative patent judges, a process often seen as more efficient and specialized for invalidity analysis than district court litigation.
• Opportunity for Defendant: A defendant would be the first to challenge the patent at the PTAB. This presents an opportunity to neutralize the threat by invalidating the asserted claims without the higher costs and complexities of a full district court litigation cycle. A thorough prior art search would be the logical first step to assess the feasibility of filing a strong IPR petition against claims 1 and 7 and any asserted dependent claims.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Nitesh Ratnakar. The patent's face and original assignment records indicate he was the original owner as an individual, not on behalf of an employer at the time of the invention. There are no unusual patterns, such as multiple inventors departing an original assignee, as the patent originated with an individual.

Original assignee

The patent was granted to the inventor, Nitesh Ratnakar, as an individual. There was no original corporate assignee. This indicates the patent was not developed as part of employment at an operating company and did not originally protect a commercial product line.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-10-09 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-12 — Reel 068880/0971

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nitesh Ratnakar, Dr.
  • Assignee: MIRA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Nitin Penn, The Penn Group, PC, 6100 Fairview Road, Suite 1135, Charlotte, NC 28210
  • Context: The inventor transferred the patent to a corporate entity years after issuance, initiating the ownership chain that would lead to assertion.

• 2024-10-30 (executed) / recorded 2025-01-08 — Reel 069778/0811

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MIRA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Assignee: CONTACTWAVE LLC
  • Correspondent: Nitin Penn, The Penn Group, PC, 6100 Fairview Road, Suite 1135, Charlotte, NC 28210. This is the same correspondent who recorded the immediately preceding assignment.
  • Context: This rapid transfer to Contactwave LLC, the entity that would begin filing infringement lawsuits just over a month later, is a classic transfer-to-asserter transaction.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9531665
    2015 : Application filed by Nitesh Ratnakar
    2016 : Patent issued to Nitesh Ratnakar
    2024 : Assigned to MIRA Advanced Tech
         : Assigned to Contactwave LLC
         : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred to Contactwave LLC (Reel 069778/0811), an entity with no known products that exists to license and enforce this patent portfolio, as evidenced by its immediate litigation campaign.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Contactwave LLC is the current assignee (Reel 069778/0811) and, as documented in the litigation summary, is a patent assertion entity that has filed multiple infringement suits.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. The attorney Nitin Penn of The Penn Group, PC, is the correspondent of record for both the transfer from the inventor to MIRA (Reel 068880/0971) and the subsequent transfer from MIRA to Contactwave LLC (Reel 069778/0811). This recurrence demonstrates a coordinated chain of transfers managed by the same agent.

4. Cascading transfers — Present. The assignment to MIRA was executed on October 9, 2024, and the subsequent assignment from MIRA to Contactwave LLC was executed just 21 days later on October 30, 2024. This rapid, back-to-back transfer through an intermediary is a hallmark of setting up an assertion campaign.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment to the ultimate plaintiff, Contactwave LLC, was executed on October 30, 2024 (Reel 069778/0811). The first lawsuits asserting the patent were filed on December 2, 2024, a little over one month later. This timing strongly indicates the transfer was made specifically to prepare for and enable the litigation campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no evidence of a bankruptcy proceeding in the ownership chain.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no operating company in the chain that could be using Contactwave LLC to sue its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at a known plaintiff, not a defensive entity.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is driven by multiple, strong, and unambiguous signals. The patent was transferred through a rapid, cascading chain of assignments (executed just 21 days apart) managed by the same legal correspondent (Reels 068880/0971 and 069778/0811). This chain terminated at Contactwave LLC, an entity that began filing infringement lawsuits a month after acquiring the patent, clearly marking it as a purpose-built assertion vehicle.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for Pat. No. 9531665

Prior art analysis

A thorough review of the prior art cited during the prosecution of US patent 9,531,665 reveals the landscape of existing technology the examiner considered before granting the patent. The patent itself cites only one prior art reference. This analysis examines that reference to determine its potential impact on the patent's claims, particularly independent claims 1 and 7.

Cited Prior Art References

Only one prior art reference was cited by the examiner and listed on the face of the granted US patent 9,531,665.

---

1. US 2006/0178903 A1 ("Commoca")

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0178903 A1
• Title: Method and system for converged communications directory search and advertising services
• Publication Date: August 10, 2006
• Filing Date: January 21, 2005
• Assignee: Commoca, Inc.

Brief Description:
The Commoca reference describes a unified system for managing communications, directory searches, and advertising. A central server provides a directory service that users can query from various devices, including mobile phones. The system allows advertisers (vendors) to target users based on their searches or profile information. A key feature is the ability for a user to interact with an advertisement, such as by clicking a "call me" button, which connects the user with the advertiser. The system logs these interactions and can use them to deliver further targeted content. For instance, if a user searches for "pizza" and interacts with a Pizza Hut ad, the system records this event.

Potential Anticipation of Claims:

The Commoca reference appears highly relevant and potentially anticipates the core concepts of the independent claims of US patent 9,531,665.

• Claim 1 & 7 (The method and server): These claims require a sequence where a user's acceptance of a message from a first vendor triggers the sending of a message from a second vendor.

  • "sending...a first vendor message...to the first communication address of the first mobile user": Commoca describes sending targeted advertising from a first vendor (e.g., Pizza Hut) to a user based on a directory search (Commoca, ¶). This advertising message is the "first vendor message."
  • "receiving...acceptance information indicating the first mobile user's acceptance of the first vendor message": Commoca details that a user can interact with the advertisement, such as by clicking to initiate a call or save contact information (Commoca, ¶,). This user interaction is a form of "acceptance," as it is an affirmative action showing interest in the vendor's message. The system explicitly logs this interaction as an "event" (Commoca, ¶).
  • "sending...a first vendor message of the plurality of vendor messages of the second vendor, to the first communication address of the first mobile user only after the verifying of the first mobile user having accepted the first vendor message of the first vendor": This is the critical step. Commoca teaches that the system can use logged events (like the acceptance of the first vendor's ad) to deliver subsequent, targeted advertising. It states that advertisers can target users based on "call history" or "session history" (Commoca, ¶). Therefore, after the user accepts the Pizza Hut ad, the system logs this event. A second vendor (e.g., Domino's Pizza, a competitor) could then use the Commoca platform to target users who have recently shown interest in pizza by interacting with the Pizza Hut ad. This constitutes sending a message from a second vendor based on the acceptance of a message from the first. Claim 4, which specifies that the vendors can be competitors, is directly supported by this scenario.

Conclusion on Commoca:
The Commoca reference discloses a system where user interaction with a first vendor's advertisement is recorded and used as a basis for targeting advertisements from other vendors. This aligns directly with the process recited in independent claims 1 and 7. An argument for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 appears strong, as the sequence of sending a message, receiving an acceptance, and then sending a second vendor's message based on that acceptance is taught by Commoca's advertising and event-logging system. While the patent examiner allowed the claims over this reference, a defendant in litigation would likely re-argue its relevance with much greater scrutiny.

An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 9,531,665, based on the provided prior art, is detailed below.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

As of the patent's priority date of November 17, 2005, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or a related field, along with two to three years of experience in developing web or early mobile applications, particularly those involving client-server architecture, databases, and online advertising or customer relationship management (CRM) systems. This individual would be familiar with common internet advertising models, such as keyword targeting and behavioral targeting, as well as mobile communication protocols like SMS and WAP.

Obviousness Ground 1: US 2006/0178903 A1 (Commoca) in view of General Knowledge in the Art

Independent claims 1 and 7 are rendered obvious by the teachings of US 2006/0178903 A1 ("Commoca") when combined with the general knowledge of a PHOSITA regarding common and well-established competitive advertising strategies.

1. Scope and Content of Commoca:
As established in the prior art analysis, Commoca teaches a server-based system that delivers targeted advertising to mobile users. The key disclosures relevant to the '665 patent are:

• A central server that sends advertisements ("vendor messages") to users.
• The system's ability to receive and log user interactions with those advertisements (an "acceptance"), such as clicking a link or initiating a call.
• A mechanism for advertisers to target subsequent ads to users based on their logged interaction history ("call history" or "session history").

2. Differences Between the Claims and Commoca:
The primary distinction between the claims of the '665 patent and the teachings of Commoca is one of specificity versus generality.

• Claims 1 & 7 recite a specific sequence: a user accepts a first vendor's message, and only after this acceptance, the system sends a message from a second vendor.
• Commoca teaches a general capability: any advertiser can target a user based on that user's prior interaction with any other advertisement logged in the system.

The claims simply describe one specific, and commercially logical, implementation of the general framework disclosed by Commoca.

3. Motivation to Combine Commoca with Known Business Practices:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply the general advertising platform of Commoca to achieve the specific outcome recited in the claims due to a widely known and powerful business incentive: competitive advertising, often called "conquesting."

By 2005, the practice of targeting a competitor's customers was a fundamental pillar of advertising strategy. In the online world, this manifested as bidding on a competitor's branded keywords or using behavioral data to serve ads to users who had visited a competitor's website. A PHOSITA, understanding Commoca's system, would have immediately recognized its utility for this exact purpose.

The motivation is not technical but commercial and would have been readily apparent:

• The Problem: An advertiser (e.g., Domino's Pizza, the "second vendor") wants to find users who are actively in the market for pizza.
• The Solution Taught by Commoca: The Commoca system provides a direct solution by allowing advertisers to target users based on their interaction history.
• The Obvious Application: The most valuable user interaction to target is a user's recent engagement with a direct competitor (e.g., Pizza Hut, the "first vendor"). A user who has just accepted a message from Pizza Hut is a highly qualified lead for Domino's.

Therefore, using the Commoca system to send a Domino's ad to a user immediately after they accepted a Pizza Hut ad is not an inventive step. It is the logical, predictable, and commercially obvious application of the tools Commoca provides, driven by a universally understood advertising strategy. The claims of the '665 patent do not add a novel technical feature but merely claim the result of applying this standard business logic to the existing technical framework of Commoca.

Conclusion

The invention claimed in independent claims 1 and 7 of US patent 9,531,665 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The sole cited prior art reference, Commoca (US 2006/0178903 A1), discloses a technical platform capable of carrying out every step of the claimed method. The motivation to configure the Commoca system in the specific manner claimed—sending a second vendor's message after a user accepts a first's—is supplied by the well-known and long-standing business practice of competitive advertising (conquesting). The patent claims a predictable use of a prior art system, which does not rise to the level of a patentable, non-obvious invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Patent Term and Family Analysis for US 9,531,665

Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions

A review of the prosecution history for US patent 9,531,665 indicates the following regarding its term:

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There has been no Patent Term Adjustment granted for this patent. The USPTO's calculation shows 0 days of adjustment. This means no significant prosecution delays attributable to the patent office were recorded that would extend the patent's life.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no evidence of any Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156. PTE is typically granted for delays in regulatory review for products like pharmaceuticals and medical devices and is not applicable to this patent.

Continuity and Family Data

US patent 9,531,665 is a continuation of a long chain of preceding applications, establishing a very early priority date.

• Type: Continuation Application
• Parent Application: The direct parent is U.S. Patent Application No. 13/274,303 (now US Patent 8,971,858), filed on October 15, 2011.
• Priority Date: The patent claims priority to the earliest non-provisional application in its family, which is U.S. Patent Application No. 11/164,318, filed on November 17, 2005. This is the critical date for determining the patent's expiration.

There are no divisional applications stemming from the application that led to the '665 patent.

Patent Family Members

This patent is part of a large family of US patents and applications all stemming from the original 2005 filing. Notable issued patents in this family include:

• US 7,533,343
• US 7,593,721
• US 8,171,093
• US 8,180,329
• US 8,254,893
• US 8,331,915
• US 8,848,892
• US 8,971,858 (the direct parent)
• US 10,122,845

There are no foreign counterpart applications, meaning this patent family exists only in the United States.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a US patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Priority Date: November 17, 2005
• Base Term: 20 years from the priority date
• PTA/PTE: 0 days

Calculation: November 17, 2005 + 20 years = November 17, 2025

Therefore, the projected expiration date for US patent 9,531,665 is November 17, 2025. It is important to note that the patent's status on Google Patents is listed as "Expired - Fee Related," which indicates that required maintenance fees were not paid, causing it to lapse before its full term. According to the USPTO's legal events, the patent expired on December 27, 2024, for failure to pay the 8-year maintenance fee.

Defensive Disclosure: Information Messaging Systems and Methods

Publication Date: May 12, 2026
Reference Patent: US 9,531,665
Keywords: Consent-based messaging, sequential advertising, triggered notifications, decentralized consent, federated messaging, cross-domain data triggers, AI-driven marketing, IoT-to-human messaging.

This document discloses a series of technical implementations, systems, and methods derived from the core concept of triggering a message from a second entity based on a user's affirmative acceptance of a message from a first entity. These disclosures are intended to enter the public domain as prior art.

---

Derivative Set 1: Component & Protocol Substitution

1.1. Decentralized Consent Ledger using Distributed Hash Tables (DHT)

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces the central server and its database with a peer-to-peer network for managing and verifying user consent. When a user accepts a message from Vendor A, the mobile application (acting as a node) creates a cryptographically signed consent record. This record contains the user's public key, Vendor A's identifier, Vendor B's identifier, and a timestamp. The record is then stored on a Distributed Hash Table (DHT), like the one used in IPFS/libp2p, addressable by a key derived from the user's identifier and Vendor A. Vendor B's messaging service, also a node in the network, can query the DHT using the known key to verify consent before dispatching its message. This removes the single point of failure and control of the central server.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserApp as User Application (Node)
      participant VendorA as Vendor A Service
      participant DHT as P2P DHT Network
      participant VendorB as Vendor B Service (Node)
  
      UserApp->>VendorA: Request/Interact with content
      VendorA-->>UserApp: Delivers Message/Offer 1
      UserApp->>UserApp: User accepts Message 1
      UserApp->>DHT: Publishes Signed Consent Record
      note over UserApp, DHT: Record: {user_pubkey, vendor_A_id, vendor_B_id, timestamp, signature}
      VendorB->>DHT: Queries for Consent Record by key(user_id, vendor_A_id)
      DHT-->>VendorB: Returns Signed Consent Record
      VendorB->>VendorB: Verifies Signature
      VendorB->>UserApp: Sends Message 2 (Post-Verification)
  

1.2. Rich Communication Services (RCS) with Chatbot-Managed Consent

• Enabling Description: This implementation leverages the RCS protocol instead of SMS or proprietary push notifications. Vendor A initiates contact via an RCS chatbot. The user's "acceptance" is a structured interaction with the chatbot (e.g., tapping a "Yes, I agree" button). Upon acceptance, the chatbot for Vendor A makes a secure API call to a central consent-broker service. This service then instructs the RCS chatbot of Vendor B to initiate a new conversation with the user, delivering the second message. The entire flow occurs within the native messaging app, utilizing RCS's rich media and standardized event handling capabilities.

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[User's Native Messaging App] -- RCS Protocol --> B(Vendor A Chatbot);
      B -- Presents Offer 1 --> A;
      A -- User Taps 'Accept' Button --> B;
      B -- "Acceptance Event" --> C{Consent Broker API};
      C -- Validates & Logs Consent --> C;
      C -- Trigger Message 2 --> D(Vendor B Chatbot);
      D -- Initiates New RCS Conversation --> A;
  

---

Derivative Set 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

2.1. Microsecond Consent-Trigger for High-Frequency Trading (HFT)

• Enabling Description: The system is implemented for algorithmic trading. A trading algorithm's "acceptance" of a data packet from a primary market data feed (Vendor A, e.g., NYSE Direct Feed) is defined as executing a trade based on that packet's data. This execution event, logged in a low-latency messaging bus like Aeron or Kafka, triggers the system to subscribe the algorithm to a correlated, but competing, data feed (Vendor B, e.g., a dark pool's pricing feed) for a short, predefined window (e.g., 500 milliseconds) to seek arbitrage opportunities. The entire process from acceptance to the second subscription must occur in the sub-millisecond timeframe.

• Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Inactive
      Inactive --> Subscribed_To_A: Receive Market Data (Vendor A)
      Subscribed_To_A --> Subscribed_To_A: Processing Data
      Subscribed_To_A --> Triggered: Execute Trade Based on Data A
      Triggered --> Subscribed_To_B: Subscribe to Feed (Vendor B)
      Subscribed_To_B --> Subscribed_To_B: Processing Data A & B
      Subscribed_To_B --> Inactive: TTL (500ms) Expires
      Triggered --> Inactive: No Trade Executed
  

2.2. Low-Bandwidth, High-Latency System for Mesh Networks

• Enabling Description: This variation is designed for disaster-response or battlefield IoT mesh networks using protocols like LoRaWAN or other delay-tolerant networking (DTN) standards. The "first message" is a high-priority status request from a central command node (Vendor A). A field unit's "acceptance" is its successful transmission of a response packet. Due to the unreliable network, this acceptance might take minutes or hours to propagate. Upon receipt at any listening node, the acceptance acts as a trigger for a secondary node (Vendor B, e.g., a supply drone) to queue a mission-critical message (e.g., "resupply coordinates") for delivery to the field unit on its next DTN routing opportunity.

• Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph FieldUnit
          A[Receive Status Request from A] --> B{Transmit Response};
      end
      subgraph MeshNetwork
          B --> C[Nodes Propagate Response];
      end
      subgraph SupplyDrone_NodeB
          C -- Response Received --> D[Queue Resupply Message];
          D --> E(Transmit to Field Unit on Next Connection);
      end
      style FieldUnit fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
      style SupplyDrone_NodeB fill:#ccf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
  

---

Derivative Set 3: Cross-Domain Applications

3.1. Aerospace: Dissimilar Avionics System Cross-Verification

• Enabling Description: In a glass cockpit, a pilot's "acceptance" of a critical flight parameter update from the primary Flight Management System (FMS, Vendor A), entered via the CDU, triggers an automated cross-check message. The FMS sends the newly accepted parameter (e.g., a final approach fix altitude) to a dissimilar secondary system, such as an Integrated Standby Instrument System (ISIS, Vendor B). The ISIS then runs its own calculation and sends a message back to the primary flight display indicating "AGREE" or "DISAGREE," providing immediate, automated verification from a redundant source.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Pilot
      participant PFD as Primary Flight Display
      participant FMS as FMS (Vendor A)
      participant ISIS as ISIS (Vendor B)
  
      Pilot->>FMS: Enters Altitude Update
      FMS-->>PFD: Displays Pending Update
      Pilot->>FMS: Executes/Accepts Update
      FMS->>ISIS: Send Accepted Parameter for Verification
      ISIS->>ISIS: Perform Independent Calculation
      ISIS-->>PFD: Display "AGREE" or "DISAGREE" status
  

3.2. Agriculture Technology (AgTech): Integrated Pest and Weather Management

• Enabling Description: A farmer receives a message from their soil analytics provider (Vendor A) recommending the application of a specific nitrogen-based pesticide. The farmer "accepts" this recommendation by placing an order for the pesticide through Vendor A's platform. This order event triggers a message to a hyper-local weather forecasting service (Vendor B). Vendor B's service, now aware of the impending application, sends a secondary alert to the farmer with a 72-hour forecast specifically detailing conditions (wind speed, temperature inversions, precipitation) that would violate the pesticide's application guidelines, preventing spray drift and runoff.

• Diagram:

  erDiagram
      FARMER ||--o{ ACCEPTS : Recommendation
      ACCEPTS {
          string eventId PK
          datetime timestamp
      }
      RECOMMENDATION ||--|{ ACCEPTS
      RECOMMENDATION {
          string pesticideType
      }
      SOIL_ANALYTICS_A ||--|{ RECOMMENDATION
      SOIL_ANALYTICS_A {
          string vendorId PK
      }
      ACCEPTS }o--|| TRIGGERS : Alert
      TRIGGERS {
          string forecastType
      }
      WEATHER_SERVICE_B ||--|{ TRIGGERS
      WEATHER_SERVICE_B {
          string vendorId PK
      }
  

---

Derivative Set 4: Integration with Emerging Technologies

4.1. AI-Optimized Second Vendor Selection

• Enabling Description: The server does not have a hardcoded rule for selecting the second vendor. When a user accepts a message from Vendor A, the server feeds a data payload (user's anonymized profile, Vendor A's category, time of day, geolocation) into a trained reinforcement learning model. The model's action space consists of all potential second vendors. The model selects the vendor (the "action") that maximizes the predicted reward, which is a combination of predicted user conversion probability and the bid price offered by the second vendor for the lead. The system continuously retrains the model based on the actual outcomes of the second messages.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[User Accepts Message from Vendor A] --> B{Server Receives Acceptance};
      B --> C[Construct Feature Vector: {user_profile, vendor_A_info, context}];
      C --> D{RL Model};
      D -- Predicts Optimal Action --> E[Select Vendor B from Pool];
      E --> F[Send Message from Selected Vendor B];
      F --> G[Track Outcome: Conversion/Dismissal];
      G --> H(Update RL Model Weights);
      H --> D;
  

4.2. Blockchain-Verified Consent via Smart Contract

• Enabling Description: The system is built on a permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric). Vendors and users are participants. Consent is managed by a smart contract. When a user accepts Vendor A's offer, their mobile app calls the grantConsent function on the smart contract, passing Vendor A and Vendor B's identifiers. The smart contract logs this consent on the ledger immutably. A service run by Vendor B listens for ConsentGranted events emitted by the smart contract. Upon hearing an event relevant to it, Vendor B's service is authorized to send its message, with the blockchain transaction ID serving as an auditable proof of prior consent.

• Diagram:

  classDiagram
      class SmartContract {
          +mapping(address => Consent) consents
          +grantConsent(vendorA_id, vendorB_id)
          +revokeConsent(vendorA_id, vendorB_id)
          +verifyConsent(user, vendorB_id) bool
      }
      class UserApp {
          +wallet_address
          +callGrantConsent()
      }
      class VendorB_Service {
          +listenForConsentEvents()
          +sendMessage()
      }
      UserApp --> SmartContract : calls
      VendorB_Service --> SmartContract : listens to events
  

---

Derivative Set 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

5.1. Privacy-Preserving Trigger with Zero-Knowledge Proof

• Enabling Description: This variant ensures Vendor B can be triggered without knowing which Vendor A generated the consent, protecting commercial relationships. When User accepts Vendor A's message, the server generates a consent token. The server then generates a zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) that it holds a valid consent token for the user that matches a policy defined by Vendor B (e.g., "user consented to a message from the 'automotive' category"), without revealing the token itself or Vendor A's identity. Vendor B's system receives the trigger request along with the ZKP. It verifies the proof and, if valid, sends its message, trusting the trigger's authenticity without needing to know the source.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant Server as Consent Broker
      participant VendorB
  
      User->>Server: Accepts message from Vendor A
      Server->>Server: Generates Consent Token & ZKP
      note right of Server: Proof asserts: "I have a valid<br/>token for this user matching<br/>Vendor B's policy."
      Server->>VendorB: Request Send + Zero-Knowledge Proof
      VendorB->>VendorB: Verifies Proof
      alt Proof is Valid
          VendorB->>User: Sends Message 2
      else Proof is Invalid
          VendorB->>Server: Rejects Request
      end
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. OAuth 2.0 Trigger Scopes: The user's "acceptance" is managed as an OAuth 2.0 consent flow. Vendor A's application requests a specific scope like trigger:vendor_b:message. When the user authenticates and approves, the authorization server (the system) issues an access token. Vendor A's backend then uses this token to make a single, authorized API call to an endpoint that dispatches Vendor B's message. This grounds the consent mechanism in a widely adopted, secure, and well-defined authorization framework.

2. CloudEvents for Decoupled Messaging: The acceptance event from Vendor A's system is packaged as a CNCF CloudEvent, a standard specification for describing event data. The event, containing source: vendor-a, type: com.vendor.a.consent.accepted, and subject: user_id, is published to a message broker (e.g., RabbitMQ, NATS). A separate microservice, acting as the trigger engine, subscribes to these events. It parses the CloudEvent and, based on its routing rules, constructs and emits a new CloudEvent (type: com.vendor.b.message.dispatch) directed to Vendor B's dispatch service. This creates a fully decoupled, event-driven architecture using open standards.

3. OpenID Connect (OIDC) Consent Claim: The consent action is stored as a custom claim within a user's identity token, managed by an OIDC provider like Keycloak. When the user accepts Vendor A's message, the OIDC provider is updated to add a claim to that user's profile, e.g., "accepted_vendors": ["vendor_a_id"]. Vendor B's application, which also uses the OIDC provider for authentication, can then request this claim as part of its authentication flow. Upon finding vendor_a_id in the user's token claims, it is authorized to send its follow-up message, tying the trigger directly to the user's federated identity and session.