CONFIDENTIAL PATENT POSITION REVIEW
PATENT POSITION18/856,095
Claim Evidence Coverage

WHAT IS EVIDENCED, WHAT IS POTENTIAL, AND WHAT IS STILL MISSING

Coverage is calculated from the evidence ledger and the claim mapping database. Nothing on this page is a legal conclusion; an element marked as evidenced means public material was located, not that a claim is met.

7/7

Elements with recorded correspondence

Derived from the claim mapping database.

5

Evidence records held

5 company-published.

5

Technical-category records

Geolocation, AR, blockchain, registry, presence, map.

0

Elements requiring evidence

Stated openly; not treated as adverse.

Claim CLAIM 1 — PUBLISHED_APPLICATION_TEXT

[PROVISIONAL PLACEHOLDER — published application text pending replacement by the final allowed claim set] A computer-implemented method for providing a digital asset marketplace, comprising receiving a selection of a physical or geographic location, associating a digital asset with the selected location, generating a map identifying locations at which digital assets may be viewed, determining that a user device is physically present at or within a defined area of the location, causing the digital asset to be displayed in augmented reality in combination with the real-world environment, and enabling the digital asset to be offered for purchase or trade with a corresponding change in digital ownership.

1.aSTRONG CORRESPONDENCE

receiving a selection of a physical or geographic location or space

A seller or owner designates a selectable real-world position, space or physical object reference within the system.

1.bDIRECT PUBLIC EVIDENCE

associating a digital asset with the selected location

The system creates a persistent binding between asset record and location data (coordinates, geohash, anchor or geofence).

1.cDIRECT PUBLIC EVIDENCE

generating a map identifying locations at which digital assets may be viewed

A map interface renders markers for the geographic positions of placed assets, enabling discovery.

1.dDIRECT PUBLIC EVIDENCE

determining physical presence of a user device at the location

Device location is evaluated against the associated location or geofence to condition access.

1.eDIRECT PUBLIC EVIDENCE

displaying the digital asset in augmented reality with the real-world environment

The asset is rendered through an AR camera view registered to the physical scene.

1.fSTRONG CORRESPONDENCE

offering the digital asset for purchase or trade

Marketplace functions expose listing, offer, bidding or trade of the located asset.

1.gSTRONG CORRESPONDENCE

effecting a change in digital ownership following the transaction

Ownership record is updated, potentially via blockchain and/or smart-contract processing.

Review annotations · coverage:illust

Source quality hierarchy

Not all evidence carries the same weight. Sources are ranked by proximity to an official record or to the company itself.

01

OFFICIAL PATENT / GOVERNMENT RECORD

USPTO, WIPO and national office records.

02

PRIMARY COMPANY SOURCE

The company's own website, product pages and posts.

03

OFFICIAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

Developer docs, whitepapers, technical specifications.

04

TERMS / LEGAL MATERIAL

Terms of service, licence terms, marketplace conditions.

05

OFFICIAL PARTNER / INVESTOR SOURCE

Partner announcements, investor and accelerator pages.

06

INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY SOURCE

Press, directories and commentary.

Evidence confidence indicators

  • SOURCE AUTHORITY How close the source is to the company or an official record.
  • DATE CONFIDENCE Whether the publication date is stated and verifiable.
  • TECHNICAL SPECIFICITY How precisely the source describes implementation.
  • CURRENTNESS Whether the described behaviour is current or historical.
  • CLAIM RELEVANCE How directly the source speaks to a claim element.

These indicators describe evidential quality only. They are not a probability of infringement and must not be read as a legal score.

How to read coverage

Coverage indicators describe the state of the public evidence gathered for this review. They are not probabilities of infringement, validity or success, and they do not substitute for claim construction or an opinion from qualified patent counsel.