tell. Why September the 26th, I don't have a good picture, but I know for the first half the intelligence was saying it's gonna be a long war. He decided then to do it, and he had set it up so he could just say yes and a day later would blow away. You said it and say work by sonars. Frequency, you can blow them up, you can do it. So tough thing to do. And so why at that point, whether he was deciding is this is going to be a long war, it's going to cost a lot of money. I'm going to go all the way. He's now moving a lot of American troops and equipment into Poland. I don't know if he's going to commit native to it. I don't know if NATO wants to go, but he basically gave Chancellor Schultz, took away the option of Schultz to say I'm going to stop giving them arms. Winter's coming. I want that pipeline. I want to keep my people warm and wealthy. So he blew it up. So there's been a lot of news reporting, a lot of interest on this very simple question. Who blew up the North Stream pipelines? Remember in September of last year, the North Stream One and N Stream Two, which are two parallelly running pipelines carrying natural gas from Russia to Germany, were blown up. There were massive explosions which happened 250 feet are below the sea. Now the first report that came out, which was last month by a famous American journalist, which seemed to suggest that this was an inside job, it was carried out by the United States using state actors. now just this past week there's been some follow up reporting September the 26th last year and. I there was no way. Common sense. You have to deal with common sense. Well, let's see. I knew that no Russia would have done it because of Putin already had responded. There's two major pipelines, N Stream one, which has been alive for since 2011, and Nord Stream two, which is. These are huge. They moved millions of whatever the measurement is of natural gas. There is a different measurement and it's not cubic feet, it's they they they move in, they mouth stream one turn Germany because they supplied cheap natural gas. That was very clear. Then they needed it anyway. I'm just giving you all this because I'm not here. I can answer your question, but I be coming from the blue one. I don't want to come from the blue. I want people to understand I've done this a long time. So the White House, Mr. Hush, they have rejected your story outright. They've called it a figment of your imagination. More fiction than fact is the wording that they used. Germany has also taken a very cautious mind on your story. You referred before in your first answer to Western media like the New York Times, The Washington Post. Had you taken your story to the editors there, would they have published such a consequential story basis, Just one single, unnamed anonymous source? How would you react to that? This source? Would I the way described the story and the intent of how I sourced it? Was to be as as vague as possible. It would have been

1. PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
To:
Name and mailing address of the ISA/ Authorized officer
Facsimile No. Telephone No.
Form PCT/ISA/237 (cover sheet) (July 2022)
PCT
Date of mailing
(day/month/year)
Applicant’s or agent’s file reference
International application No. International filing date (day/month/year) Priority date (day/month/year)
From the
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
See paragraph 2 below
WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
(PCT Rule 43bis.1)
International Patent Classification (IPC) or both national classification and IPC
Applicant
1. This opinion contains indications relating to the following items:
Box No. I Basis of the opinion
Box No. II Priority
Box No. III Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability
Box No. IV Lack of unity of invention
Box No. V Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability;
citations and explanations supporting such statement
Box No. VI Certain documents cited
Box No. VII Certain defects in the international application
Box No. VIII Certain observations on the international application
2. FURTHER ACTION
If a demand for international preliminary examination is made, this opinion will be considered to be a written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority (“IPEA”) except that this does not apply where the applicant chooses an Authority
other than this one to be the IPEA and the chosen IPEA has notified the International Bureau under Rule 66.1bis(b) that written
opinions of this International Searching Authority will not be so considered.
If this opinion is, as provided above, considered to be a written opinion of the IPEA, the applicant is invited to submit to the IPEA
a written reply together, where appropriate, with amendments, before the expiration of 3 months from the date of mailing of Form
PCT/ISA/220 or before the expiration of 22 months from the priority date, whichever expires later.
For further options, see Form PCT/ISA/220.
FOR FURTHER ACTION
Date of completion of this opinion
KHASTGIR, PRITY TECH CORP
INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIST C/C3A/436,
JANAKPURI ,NEW DELHI-110058 INDIA
20-03-2023
ZEN108-PK-AN
PCT/IN2022/051037 28-11-2022 29-11-2021
G06Q10/0639 Version=2023.01
KUMAR, PRASHANT
Indian Patent Office
Plot No. 32, Sector 14,
Dwarka,New Delhi-110075
20-03-2023 Pritish Ranjan Pradhan
+91-1125300200

2. WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
International application No.
Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. I) (July 2022)
Box No. I Basis of this opinion
1. With regard to the language, this opinion has been established on the basis of:
the international application in the language in which it was filed.
a translation of the international application into ___________________________ which is the language of a translation
furnished for the purposes of international search (Rules 12.3(a) and 23.1(b)).
2. This opinion has been established taking into account the rectification of an obvious mistake authorized by or notified to
this Authority under Rule 91 (Rule 43bis.1(b)).
3. With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed in the international application, this opinion has been
established on the basis of a sequence listing:
a. forming part of the international application as filed.
b. furnished subsequent to the international filing date for the purposes of international search (Rule 13ter.1(a)),
accompanied by a statement to the effect that the sequence listing does not go beyond the disclosure in the
international application as filed.
4. With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed in the international application, this opinion has been
established to the extent that a meaningful opinion could be formed without a WIPO Standard ST.26 compliant sequence
listing.
5. Additional comments:
PCT/IN2022/051037

3. International application No.
Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. V) (July 2022)
Box No. V Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability;
citations and explanations supporting such statement
1. Statement
Novelty (N) Claims ______________________________________________________ YES
Claims ______________________________________________________ NO
Inventive step (IS) Claims ______________________________________________________ YES
Claims ______________________________________________________ NO
Industrial applicability (IA) Claims ______________________________________________________ YES
Claims ______________________________________________________ NO
2. Citations and explanations:
WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY PCT/IN2022/051037
1-18
1-18
1-18
Reference is made to the following documents:
D1: US 2017221165 A1 (ACCENTURE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), 03 August
2017 (03/08/2017)
D2: US 2018268341 A1 (SELLERATION INC), 20 September 2018
(20/09/2018)
ARTICLE 33(2) OF THE PCT – NOVELTY
The subject-matter of claims 1-18 is novel in the sense of Article
33(2) PCT, because all technical features of said claims are not
disclosed by D1 which is considered as the closest prior art.
ARTICLE 33(3) OF THE PCT- INVENTIVE STEP
The present application does not meet the criteria of Article 33(3)
PCT, because the subject-matter of claims 1 to 18 does not
involve an inventive step in view of the combination of disclosure
of D1 with that of D2 along with common general knowledge in the
art.
Regarding claims 1-18 document D1 discloses (the references in
parentheses applying to this document): a method and system for
skill assessment which comprises of collection of data of candidate
(abstract of D1), assessment of skill of the employees
(claims 1-5), categorization of employees (paragraph [0085]),
grading and scoring of skills (paragraphs [0101-0104]), graphical
user interface to present skills (paragraphs [0103-0105]) and
scoring of candidate (paragraphs [0103-0105]).
Regarding claims 1-18 document D2 discloses about assessment of
skills (abstract), displaying current skills (abstract) and usage

4. International application No.
Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. VII) (July 2022)
Box No. VII Certain defects in the international application
The following defects in the form or contents of the international application have been noted:
WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY PCT/IN2022/051037
(a). The abstract should be written as per the requirements of Rule
8.1(d) of PCT. Each main technical feature mentioned in the abstract
and illustrated by a drawing in the international application shall
be followed by a reference sign, placed between parentheses.

5. International application No.
Supplemental Box
Form PCT/ISA/237 (Supplemental Box) (July 2022)
WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
In case the space in any of the preceding boxes is not sufficient.
Continuation of:
PCT/IN2022/051037
Continuation of Citation and Explanation(Box5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
of algorithm to evaluate and enhance skill of the candidates
(paragraph [0199]).
Regarding claims 1-18 although D1 does not explicitly disclose
about the presence guideline module, skill set for Full Stack
Transformation and verification of candidates through blockchain.
However, the said features are common general knowledge in the art
and are easily derivable from D1.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to
combine the teaching of D1 with D2 along with common general
knowledge in the art to arrive at the subject matter of claims 1-18
and thus the said claims lack inventive step.
ARTICLE 33(4) OF THE PCT - INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY
The subject matter of claims 1 to 18 is considered to have
industrial applicability and therefore complies with the
requirements of Article 33(4) of PCT.