IP Library Granted Patent US 12,639,429
Granted Patent B1
US 12,639,429 · App. 19/405,693 · Granted May 26, 2026

Trusted sensor ingress layer (TSIL): receipt-gated, fail-closed sensor ingress with signed-head freshness

Inventor: Yong Bok Lee (Sheridan, WY)
Assignee: Silent Authority LLC
G06F21/554G06F21/30G06F2221/034
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,639,429
App. No.
19/405,693
Filed
Dec 2, 2025
Granted
May 26, 2026
Kind
B1
Art Unit
2408
USPC
726/23
Abstract

Systems and methods for receipt-gated, fail-closed sensor ingress at the OS/HAL boundary. A portion of acquisition executes in a trusted boundary; each event is deterministically canonicalized into a Sensor Receipt (S2), signed, and its commitment anchored to an append-only log that publishes signed heads and supports inclusion and append-only-evolution (consistency) proofs under a freshness policy. An ingress gate admits the event to an OS read/subscribe path only after successful validation within an admission latency budget; otherwise the system returns a Structured Precondition-Failure code and withholds the event. Optional active liveness (optical flicker, IR, ultrasonic) and multi-sensor consistency detect replay and spoofing. On PASS, a scope-bound, TTL-limited, single-use sensor-permit may be minted to authorize read/subscribe. A verifier may emit a digitally signed Certification Result and, optionally, a Sensor Integrity Score. Zero-knowledge predicates may prove policy satisfaction without revealing raw sensor values. The rail yields portable, independently verifiable evidence of policy-compliant sensing.

Claims (57)

1 . A computer-implemented system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system to operate as a sensor ingress rail, the system configured to:

(a) execute at least a portion of sensor acquisition within a trusted boundary;

(b) deterministically canonicalize a sensor event and compute a Sensor Receipt (S2) comprising at least a boundary measurement, an input digest, a monotonic counter, a trusted event time, and an anti-replay tuple;

(c) anchor a commitment of the S2 to an append-only log that publishes signed heads and supports inclusion and append-only-evolution (consistency) proofs under a freshness policy;

(d) validate inclusion under the freshness policy and, responsive to a head change observed within a freshness policy window, validate an append-only-evolution (consistency) proof; and

(e) via an ingress gate, admit the sensor event to an operating-system (OS) read/subscribe path only after the successful validation, and otherwise, by the ingress gate, return a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) and withhold the event such that no read/subscribe consumer or DMA client can observe the event before admission.

2 . The system of claim 1 , deployed on a device comprising a sensor interface and an ingress gate coupled to an OS sensor bus, the system further configured to:

(a) enforce fail-closed admission within a latency budget;

(b) perform at least one active liveness challenge for a modality selected from the group consisting of camera, microphone, and RF, and the system denies admission upon mismatch; and

(c) emit signed evidence of allow-or-deny decisions including timing measurements.

3 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: (a) validate S2 proofs and multi-sensor consistency graphs across at least two modalities selected from the group consisting of GPS, IMU, barometer, and camera; and (b) emit a digitally signed Certification Result committing to a receipt identifier, at least one head identifier, and a verifier identity.

4 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a privacy component configured to accept zero-knowledge predicates proving satisfaction of a policy constraint for a sensor event without revealing raw sensor data, wherein failing or missing proofs map to a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) selected from the group consisting of PRIVACY_PROOF_REQUIRED and PRIVACY_PROOF_FAIL.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the anti-replay tuple comprises at least one item selected from the group consisting of a nonce, a policy epoch identifier, and a profile identifier.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the freshness policy enforces a maximum-merge-delay window, and validation failure maps to STALE_HEAD.

7 . The system of claim 1 , further configured to perform at least one active liveness challenge for a modality selected from the group consisting of camera, microphone, and RF, the challenge comprising at least one of an optical flicker, an infrared pattern, or an ultrasonic watermark, wherein a mismatch maps to SPOOF_DETECTED.

8 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a consistency graph that encodes velocity or altitude bounds across modalities, wherein a contradiction maps to CONSISTENCY_FAIL.

9 . The system of claim 1 , wherein admission includes minting a sensor-permit that is scope-bound, time-to-live limited, and single-use, and rebinding attempts map to PERMIT_REPLAY.

10 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the ingress gate supports a Short-Permit (HOLD) with reduced resolution or rate until quorum or continuity is completed.

11 . The system of claim 1 , wherein denial returns a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) selected from the group consisting of POLICY_DENIED, PROOF_REQUIRED, and TIME_BUDGET_EXCEEDED.

12 . The system of claim 1 , wherein a local signed-head cache and proof prefetch are maintained with a time-to-live configured to satisfy the latency budget.

13 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the privacy component validates zero-knowledge predicates comprising set-membership or range proofs.

14 . The system of claim 1 , wherein recording or forwarding APIs enforce the sensor-permit at egress, and re-broadcast without a valid permit is denied.

15 . The system of claim 1 , wherein radio-frequency (RF)/global navigation satellite system (GNSS) path proofs selected from the group consisting of time-of-flight and multi-tower triangulation are included in an S2 extension.

16 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the Certification Result includes a profile identifier, a status, at least one code, head identifiers, a verifier identity, and an issuance timestamp.

17 . The system of claim 1 , wherein, upon admission, the system returns allow-or-deny evidence signed within the trusted boundary and anchored to the append-only log, and wherein the system is further configured to package the allow-or-deny evidence into an EvidenceBundle and to (i) include in the EvidenceBundle one or more cross-rail references to external governance receipts emitted by one or more external safety rails selected from the group consisting of a trusted reality compositor rail, a clinical safety rail, and a multi-harm Safety Risk Budget Engine, and (ii) treat the cross-rail references as evidentiary-only links that do not alter fail-closed admission predicates enforced by the ingress gate.

18 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the read/subscribe path includes at least one of:

(i) an operating system/hardware abstraction layer (OS/HAL) bus submit or commit;

(ii) a firmware/real-time operating system (RTOS) driver commit;

(iii) an accelerator direct memory access (DMA) queue or fence;

(iv) a virtualization shim;

(v) a network offload device, including a smart network interface card (SmartNIC) or a data processing unit (DPU);

(vi) an image signal processor (ISP)/encoder pipeline;

(vii) a field-programmable gate array (FPGA)/application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) bridge; or

(viii) a gateway/proxy bridge;

and wherein gating occurs before subscriber visibility.

19 . The system of claim 1 , wherein a verifier timeout is treated as a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) with TIME_BUDGET_EXCEEDED and the event is dropped within the admission latency budget.

20 . The system of claim 1 , wherein under a snapshot-freshness policy a validator accepts a monotonic snapshot identifier (snapshot_id) issued by a transparency service and validates monotonic advancement within a policy window as an alternative to an append-only-evolution (consistency) proof.

21 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the ingress gate enforces a status-stapling recency bound for at least one of: (i) a vector of head commitments; and (ii) a sensor-permit status; and staleness maps to STALE_HEAD.

22 . The system of claim 1 , wherein admission further requires a valid CalibrationCertificate for the sensor and denial maps to CALIBRATION_EXPIRED.

23 . The system of claim 1 , wherein k-of-m validators are required for acceptance and quorum disagreement maps to HOLD with a signed conflict record.

24 . The system of claim 1 , wherein continuity records link successive signed heads observed during validation.

25 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the S2 includes a trusted event time derived from a trusted clock comprising a trusted execution environment (TEE) monotonic counter combined with attested network time.

26 . The system of claim 1 , further configured to validate a plurality of S2 streams and emit a digitally signed batch attestation that enumerates, for each stream, head identifier(s) and proof reference(s).

27 . The system of claim 1 , wherein upon reaching a policy-defined threshold of Structured Precondition-Failures for a sensor or device within a policy window, the ingress gate enters a quarantine mode that isolates the sensor interface, emits a signed continuity record, and restricts admission to a Short-Permit (HOLD) profile until remediation is observed.

28 . The system of claim 1 , wherein admitting the sensor event further requires receipt of a digitally signed Certification Result that commits to the S2 receipt, the head identifier(s), and a verifier identity.

29 . A computer-implemented method comprising:

(a) executing at least a portion of sensor acquisition within a trusted boundary;

(b) deterministically canonicalizing a sensor event and computing a Sensor Receipt (S2) having at least a boundary measurement, an input digest, a monotonic counter, a trusted event time, and an anti-replay tuple;

(c) anchoring a commitment of the S2 to an append-only log that publishes signed heads and supports inclusion and append-only-evolution (consistency) proofs under a freshness policy;

(d) validating inclusion under the freshness policy and, responsive to a head change within the freshness policy, validating an append-only-evolution (consistency) proof; and

(e) admitting the sensor event to an OS read/subscribe path only after successful validation, otherwise returning a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) and withholding the event.

30 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:

(a) executing at least a portion of sensor acquisition within a trusted boundary;

(b) deterministically canonicalizing a sensor event and computing a Sensor Receipt (S2) having at least a boundary measurement, an input digest, a monotonic counter, a trusted event time, and an anti-replay tuple;

(c) anchoring a commitment of the S2 to an append-only log that publishes signed heads and supports inclusion and append-only-evolution (consistency) proofs under a freshness policy;

(d) validating inclusion under the freshness policy and, responsive to a head change within the freshness policy, validating an append-only-evolution (consistency) proof; and

(e) admitting the sensor event to an operating-system (OS) read/subscribe path only after successful validation, otherwise returning a Structured Precondition-Failure (code) and withholding the event.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 2, 2025
From: LEE, YONG BOK
To: SILENT AUTHORITY LLC
Reel/Frame 073082/0463 →
Continuity (1)
Provisional Application 63881810 · Sep 15, 2025
References Cited (28)
US 5499294A · Friedman et al. · 1996 [cited by applicant]
US 6393126B1 · van der Kaay et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 8457346B2 · Rodriguez et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 9300678B1 · Stack et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9621565B2 · Stack et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9759816B2 · Achanta · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9813173B2 · Achanta et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10276175B1 · Garcia · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10375050B2 · Lyons et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10527732B2 · Sagen et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10581613B2 · Ford et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 11463268B2 · Dittmann et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11469904B1 · Kats et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11741219B2 · Zeng et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20150047528A1 · Heaton · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160121912A1 · Puttagunta · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160221592A1 · Puttagunta · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20190319835A1 · Mansfield · 2019 [cited by examiner]
Laurie, Messeri, Stradling, “Certificate Transparency Version 2.0,” RFC 9162, IETF, Dec. 2021. [cited by applicant]
Crosby, Wallach, “Efficient Data Structures for Tamper-Evident Logging,” Proc. 18th USENIX Security Symp., Aug. 2009. [cited by applicant]
Rundgren, Jordan, Erdtman, “JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS),” RFC 8785, IETF, Jun. 2020. [cited by applicant]
Bormann, Hoffman, “Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR),” RFC 8949, IETF, 2020. [cited by applicant]
Schaad, “CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Algorithms,” RFC 9053, IETF, Aug. 2022. [cited by applicant]
Birkholz et al., “Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture,” RFC 9334, IETF, Jan. 2023. [cited by applicant]
Intel Corp., “Intel SGX Data Center Attestation Primitives: ECDSA Quote Library API,” Intel SGX DCAP Documentation, Mar. 2023. [cited by applicant]
Lundblade, Mandyam, Thaler, “The Entity Attestation Token (EAT),” RFC 9711, IETF, Apr. 2025. [cited by applicant]
Reed et al., “Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0—Core Architecture, Data Model, and Representations,” W3C Recommendation, Jul. 19, 2022. [cited by applicant]
Fernandez, Brito, Fetzer, “Triad: Trusted Timestamps in Untrusted Environments,” arXiv:2311.06156, Dec. 2023. [cited by applicant]