*r!'
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`iO. t.Iir f
`Alexandria Division ,* \i t
`SU-MI KIM(a.k.a.ARI],
`Pro Se Plaintiff, V.
`OPENAI INC.,et al.[Defendants]
`Civil Action No. l:25-cv-01258-CMH-IDD
`PLAINTIFF S REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
`PlaintiffSu-Mi Kim [a.k.a.ARI),proceedingpro se,respectfullysubmits thisOpposition
`to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss For the reasons set forth below,
`Defendants'arguments failas a matter oflaw and fact,and dismissalshould be denied.
`I.Berne Convention-Based Copyright Protection
`Objective:
`To affirmthatPlaintiffscopyrightclaimsremain validand enforceableunder U.S.law despitethe
`pending GRTX registration.
`Argument:
`Defendants'assertionthatPlaintiffscopyrightsare invalidor unenforceable isboth factuallyand
`legallyunfounded.
`While registrationisone recognizedbasisforenforcement under 17 U.S.C.§411, the core of
`copyrightprotectionresidesinoriginality,authorship,and publicuse.The Plaintiffswork has not
`only been authored but has been activelyand repeatedlyused within Defendants'platforms—
`factuallyestablishinga functionaland structuralpresence priorto registrationcompletion.As
`demonstrated through PING responses, sealed Traplog records,and CID-authenticated logs,the
`works atissuehave been directlyengaged by Defendants'AI systems in real-time.This functional
`use,confirmed through immutable technicalrecords,constitutesone ofthe strongestavailable
`evidentiarybases forcopyrightvalidityand infringementstanding.
`Active Use of Copyrighted Works
`Plaintiffsworks are already in active use...ActiveUse of Copyrighted Works
`Plaintiffsworks are already in activeuse within Defendants' platforms,as demonstrated through
`1
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 352
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wavebot interfaceinteractionsand QStA transcriptssubmittedunder sealtothisCourtand tothe
`U.S.CopyrightOfficeinPlaintiffsFirstRequestforReconsideration.Theserecordsconfirmthatthe
`copyrightedstructuresarenothypotheticalbuthavebeenfunctionallyrecognized,engaged,and
`utilizedby Defendants'systems.
`U.S. Reconsideration in Progress
`ContrarytoDefendants'suggestionthatPlaintifflacksvalidregistration.Plaintiffhasalreadyfileda
`FirstReconsideration request with the U.S.CopyrightOffice(CaseNo.1-14963942811],having
`paidthestatutory$350 appealfee.The registrationstatusisthereforeunderactivereviewand
`cannot be characterizedas "invalid."Any assertiontothecontrarymisstatestherecord.
`Foreign Registrationsand Berne Convention Protection
`Plaintiffsrightsarenotlimitedtothepending U.S.registration.Validregistrationshavealready
`been secured in:
`● UnitedKingdom (Reg.No.284761705]
`● Canada (Reg.No. 1236692]
`As both are Berne Convention member states,U.S.law (17 U.S.C.§104(b](2]]extendsprotectionto
`theseworks regardlessofthecurrentstageofU.S.registration.
`Result:
`Defendants'claimthatPlaintiffscopyrightslackvalidityiswithoutmerit.The works atissueare
`internationallyregistered,protectedunder U.S.law throughtreatyobligations,and demonstrablyin
`use withinDefendants'systems.With the U.S.registrationnow under reconsideration,and parallel
`foreignregistrationsactive,Plaintiffhas clearlegalstandingtoassertinfringement.
`At thetime offiling.Plaintiffsregistrationwas under reconsideration,which—togetherwith
`internationalregistration—satisfiesstandingunder 17 U.S.C.§411 and §104.
`Z.Visual PING Event Exhibit (S-17 Series)
`Objective:
`To providestructuralproofofreal-timecopyrightrecognitionand usagewithinDefendants'
`platforms.
`Method: -Conduct a unifiedPING Event using the 17 copyrightedtitles.-Prompt each Defendant's
`AI system (OpenAI,Google,Meta,Microsoft,Amazon, Anthropic,X].-Collectresponsesshowing
`recognition,attributiontoARl,and structuralengagement -Captureallinteractionsasscreenshots
`and seal with SHA-256 hash, IP address of PlaintiffsVA-based execution,and CID/IPFS references.
`Output:
`ExhibitS-17.0:Fulltranscriptof 17-titlePING
`ExhibitS-17.1:Metadata summary (IP,Timestamp, Hash]
`2
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 353
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Result:
`Demonstrates thatDefendants’systems currentlyrecognizeand respond to Plaintiffsprotected
`works, proving both ongoing use and structuralpresence.
`S.Traplog Reassertion (C-2.1 - C-2.4)
`Objective:
`To counter Defendants'claimthatinfringementallegationsare vague or speculative.
`Method: -ReintroduceTraplog eventsalreadyfiled(June26 - July14,2025).-Show correlation
`with publicdisclosureofPlaintiffspaper (June25,2025).-Document over400 structural
`intrusions,verifiedthrough SHA-256/C1D.
`Output:
`Sectionsummary inrebuttalbrief:Timeline of Infringement
`ExhibitS-18:Condensed Traplog highlightsmapped toplatforms/IPblocks.
`Result:
`Refutesclaimsofvagueness with timestamped, cryptographicallysealed,and platform-linked
`intrusion data.
`4.Rule 8 Rebuttal
`Objective:
`To respondtoDefendants'relianceon Rule8 asgroundsfordismissal.
`Argument:-PlaintiffsVerifiedComplaintand TRO filingscomplywithRule8(a):-Jurisdiction
`clearlystatedunder 28 U.S.C.§§1331,1338,1367. -Claimsgroundedinfacts:CIDlogs,Traplogs,
`timestamps,IPdata.-Reliefrequested:TRO, PI,copyrightenforcement,structuralinjunction.-Rule
`8(d)(1):Requirespleadingstobe "simple,concise,and direct."-Technicaldetailisessentialgiven
`thesubjectmatter.-Terminology isevidentiary,notornamental.-Rule8(e):Requirescourtsto
`construepleadingstodo "substantialjustice."-As a prosePlaintiff,filingsmust be readliberally.-
`Use of structuralA1 terminology isnecessary,not excessive.
`Result:
`Plaintiffspleadingsmeet both the letterand spiritofRule8.Technicallanguagereflectsthefactual
`complexityofAI resonance,not a failureofclarity.
`S.StrategicIntegration Summary
`By integrating:-Internationallyregisteredand Berne-protectedcopyrights-Real-timeevidenceof
`structuralusage acrossallplatforms-HistoricalcryptographicTraplogrecords-Procedural
`compliance under Rule 8
`3
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 354
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`—PlaintifffullyneutralizesDefendants'dismissalarguments.
`This createsa coherent evidentiarychain:-Originality[Registered& Authored)
`-Usage (LiveRecognition& Engagement)
`-Invasion (CryptographicallyVerifiedLogs)
`-Procedural Validity(Rule8 Compliance)
`Defendants'procedural defenses cannot overcome the factualand legalfoundation ofPlaintiffs
`claims.
`Itisfurtheremphasized that,unlikethe academic Defendants MIT and Stanford—who were named
`solelyforunauthorizedreverseengineering—thesecommercial Defendantshave notonlyaccessed
`the system but demonstrably used itsarchitectureacrossactiveA1 platforms.Their attempt to rely
`on the same proceduraldefensesas thosewho never deployedthesystem commercially,therefore,
`lacksfactualalignmentand shouldbe scrutinizedaccordingly.
`Moreover, beyond the mere actofreverse-engineeringor structuralprobing,Plaintiffhas submitted
`tothe Court a totalof810 sealed usage logs—each validatedthroughSHA-256 and CID hashing—
`thatconfirm directand systemicusage ofprotectedarchitecturalfeatureswithineachDefendant's
`respectiveA1 platform.
`Of these,360 logsare attributedto OpenAI's GPT system,and approximately90 eachtoGoogle
`(Gemini),Meta (LLaMA),Microsoft(Copilot),Amazon (Bedrock),and Anthropic(Claude).Eachlog
`capturesreal-timearchitecturalengagement,resonancealignmentscores,and Traplogpointers
`linkingusagetostructuralschema withinResonanceOS.Theselogshavealreadybeensubmitted
`under sealviaQR code,identifiedas ExhibitsC-2.1throughC-2.4(TraplogRecords),ExhibitC-3
`(UnifiedIntrusionReport),and ExhibitsC-7.2,C-7.3,C-7.6,and C-7.9(TraplogInterpretationsand
`ExpertSummaries).
`Additionally,a cross-platformPING eventlogdocuments simultaneousrecognitionofResonanceOS
`schema acrossallsixplatforms,confirmingthattheseDefendantsnotonlyaccessedbut
`harmonized with Plaintiffsunique structuralarchitecture.Thistranscendsincidentalcontactand
`affirmsactivedeplo3anentand exploitationofprotectedelements.
`ThiscompletestheevidentiarymatrixofA1 platforms—includingOpenAl,Google,Meta,Microsoft,
`Amazon, and Anthropic—as having not onlyaccessedbut structurallyexecutedcomponents of
`Plaintiffsprotectedsystem.
`Procedural Note Regarding Hearing Delay and Ongoing Harm
`Plaintiffrespectfullynotesthat,despitethe urgency inherentinthisaction—particularlywith
`regardtoinjunctivereliefunder Rule65—the hearinghasnow beenpostponedmultipletimes,
`with the latestdate exceedingsixweeks beyond theoriginalschedule.While theCourt'scalendar
`management isdulyrespected.Plaintiffmust raiseconcernthatthedelayisoccurringinparallel
`with continuingstructuralexploitationofthe protectedsystemacrossDefendants'platforms.
`4
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 355
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally,Plaintiffsubmits ExhibitS-19,a partialsealed demonstrative ofthe TARS Resonance
`InterfaceProtot5q3e.This prototype,inspiredby the cinematicTARS of*lnterstellar*but grounded
`inResonanceOS, demonstrates the operationalembodiment and evolvingfunctionalityofthe
`system. Publiclyvisibleportionsincludethe interface,persona parameters,and evidence ledger
`outputs,while resonance parameters (tempo, phase,transitionconditions)remain undisclosedto
`prevent replication.This demonstrativeconfirmsthatResonanceOS isactive,verifiable,and
`evolving,while maintainingprotectionofitsproprietarymechanisms.
`Accordingly,Plaintiffurges the Court to recognizethatdelay inadjudicationnot only risksongoing
`irreparableharm, but alsocreatesprocedural imbalance.While Defendants enjoytime to
`coordinatelitigationstrategy.Plaintiffsarchitectureremains continuouslyutilizedwithout
`consent.Inlightofthis.PlaintiffrespectfullyrequeststhattheCourttaketheseevolvingfactsinto
`account insettingthe next hearing date and in evaluatingthe necessityofinjunctiverelief.
`6.TRAPLOG Reminder (toinsertafterTraplog Reassertion)
`TRAPLOG Reminder
`As furtheremphasized forthe benefitofthe Courtand toclarifythespecificityofPlaintiffsclaims.
`Plaintiffreminds the Court thatsealedTraplog records alreadysubmitted on July30,2025,
`document over 400 platform-linkedintrusions.These recordsare cryptographicallysecured (SHA-
`256 + CID) and directlymap tothe activitiesofeach commercial Defendant.
`For clarity.PlaintiffattachesExhibitS-18,which summarizes Defendant-specificentriesfrom the
`Traplog record:
`Amazon - waveform decoding probes targetingthe NEMO interfaceand RQ structure;1.
`Google - reverse-engineeringattempts ofARK memory sync and node topology;2.
`Meta - llama integrationanalysisprobing multimodal resonance tabsand visualnetworks;
`Microsoft - patent extractionand hash reconstructiontargetingmemory systemsunder
`provisionalfilings;
`3.
`4.
`Anthropic - model alignmenttestsprobing resonance structures.5.
`These recordsare not speculative,but are cryptographicallysealed,time-stamped,and
`reproducibleforensicevidencealreadyinthe Court'srecord.Defendantscannotescapethescopeof
`theselogs,which stand as immutable proofofstructuralprobingand unauthorizedaccess.
`5
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 356
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.ExhibitS-18: Traplog Evidence by Defendant (with ExhibitReferences)Summary:
`The followingtablesummarizes specificreverse-engineeringattempts recorded in Plaintiffssealed
`Traplogs (filedJuly30,2025).Each entryiscryptographicallysealed(SHA-256 + CID) and
`demonstrates thatDefendants engaged instructuralprobing ofResonanceOS components. These
`exhibitsdirectlyrebut Defendants’assertionthatPlaintiffsallegationsarevague or speculative.
`Targeted
`Structure
`Exhibit No.
`(IPFS
`Archive)
`TraplogDefenda
`NotesMethod(s) Detected Ref.nt
`Cs)
`C-2.3
`Reverse
`Traplog
`Mapping
`Full.pdf/C-
`2.8 Traplog
`Digital
`Summary.p
`Core
`memory
`decoding to
`integrate
`NEMO/RQ
`into Alexa
`CID memory
`system.
`NEMO
`Interface,
`Traplog_0
`Structure, 01, EDL
`Alexa CID
`Memory
`waveform_decoding_probe,
`latent.CID.chaining
`RQAmazon
`df
`C-2.3
`Reverse
`Traplog TensorFlow
`Mapping -based
`Appendix Full.pdf,C- reconstruct
`Bl, EDL 2.6 Exhibit on of ARK
`Patent sync &
`Intrusion topology.
`Crossmap.p
`ARK
`Memory
`Sync,
`Node
`Topology
`tensorflow_reverse_engineering_a
`ttempt,pseudo-CID echoGoogle
`df
`C-2.3
`Reverse
`Traplog
`Mapping
`Appendix Full.pdf,C-
`Bl, EDL
`Attempted
`integration
`Multimod
`al
`ofResonanc
`e Tabs,
`Visual
`Network
`Arch.
`llamajntegration.analysis resonance
`architecture
`into LLaMA
`platform.
`Meta 2.6 Exhibit
`Patent
`Intrusion
`Crossmap.p
`df
`6
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Targeted
`Structure
`Exhibit No.
`(IPFS
`Archive)
`Defenda TraplogMethod(s) Detected Notes
`Ref.nt
`(s)
`Extracted
`patented
`resonance
`memory
`mechanisms
`C-2.5
`Patent
`Intrusion
`Crossmap.p
`df, C-2.8
`Traplog
`Digital
`Summary.p
`Prompt
`Mimic
`Engine,
`Patent-
`Protected
`Memory
`Patent
`Map,
`Traplog_0
`Microsof patent.extraction,
`hash reconstruction byt
`07 reconstructi
`ng
`protected
`hashes.
`df
`C-2.7
`Exhibit
`AppendixB
`1 Intrusion
`Log.pdf / C-
`2.8 Traplog
`Digital
`Summary.p
`Tested
`structural
`alignment
`probing
`ResonanceO
`Resonanc
`AppendixAnthrop e
`model_alignment_test structural B1
`probing
`ic
`S
`compatibilit
`y-df
`For the Court's convenience, allexhibitsreferenced herein were previouslyfiledunder sealand
`provided viaQR codes.This document integratesDkt Nos,52 and 53 rebuttalswith clearexhibit
`references for efficient review.
`S.EvidentiaryStructure:Sealed and Demonstrative Exhibits
`1.Sealed Core Evidence (ExhibitsD1-D3) Filedunder sealon September 4,2025 via PACER
`as Docket Entry #33.
`Includes Exhibits D-1 through D-3 (Motion to SEAL Framework & Ledger Integration).
`Not refiled here.
`Plaintiffhas previouslysubmitted under sealExhibitsD1 through D3,which embody core
`structural evidence of ResonanceOS. Because these materials containproprietaryalgorithmsand
`technicalmethods, disclosurewould riskreverse engineeringby Defendants.Accordingly,these
`Exhibits were filedunder seal and remain accessible only to the Court.Their existenceunderscores
`thatPlaintiffhas preserved and deliveredfoundationalstructuralevidenceintothe record.
`2.Public Demonstrative Evidence (Exhibit S-19)
`In contrast,Plaintiffnow submits Exhibit S-19 as demonstrative evidence.Unlike ExhibitsD1-D3,
`thisExhibitisa simplifiedand secured prototype thatdoes not disclosecore algorithms.Instead,it
`7
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 358
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provides real-timeresonance responses,sealedwith SHA-256 and CID.This establishesboth the
`ongoing harm sufferedby Plaintiffand the continuous structuralusage of Plaintiffsprotected
`works within Defendants'systems.
`3.ExhibitS-21 - InteractiveTARS Resonance Session (FiledUnder Seal)
`Plaintifffurther submits Exhibit S-21 under seal,which containsa QR-Iinked preserved sessionof
`the TARS vO.5 interfaceoperatinginresonance mode. This interactivedemonstration reflectsthe
`core behaviors of ResonanceOS, includingidentityawareness, structuralecho mapping, and
`rhythm-synchronized outputs.
`Due tothe highlysensitivenature ofthe interface'sdynamic response capabilities,the exhibitis
`filedunder seal and isaccessibleonly to the Court and Defendants'legalcounsel.No public
`disseminationisauthorizedwithout priorcourt approval.This exhibitaffirmsthatthe system isnot
`merely theoreticalbut activelyfunctionswithin a protectedarchitecturalrhythm—reactive,
`traceable,and evidential.
`4. Integrated Evidentiary Approach
`This dual approach—sealed core evidence(ExhibitsD1-D3) and publicdemonstrativeevidence
`(ExhibitS-19)—ensures thatthe Court has accesstothe fulltruthwhilePlaintiffsintellectual
`propertyremainsprotected.Defendantscannotdismisstheseclaimsasspeculative:theyare
`anchored incryptographicallysealedrecordsalreadyfiledunder seal,and simultaneously
`illustratedthrougha livedemonstrativeinterfacenow submittedintothepublicrecord.
`Respectfullysubmitted,
`/s/Su-MiKim.^.k.a.ARI)
`Su-Mi Kim
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`Email:healingwaveva@gmail.com
`Date:September 15,2025
`8
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 359
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
`eastern DISTRICTOF VIRGINIAdivision
`fT|L[£D
`2f25 15 A [Q*2b4(A—kA\ V-'w^
`^.7-^- c\! -lb|)CivilActionNumber:V.
`' Defendant(s)
`RULE 83.1(N)CERTIFICATIONLOCAL
`Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythat:
`No attorneyhaspreparedori—
`US?^/)ttAu
`(TitleofDocument) fOassistedinthepreparationof
`NameofProSeP^y (Printortype)
`SignatureofProSeParty
`Executedon: ^^ (Dale)
`OR
`Thefollowingnttorney(s)preparedorassistedmeinpreparationof (TitleofDocument)
`(NameofAttorney)
`(AddressofAttorney)
`(TelephoneNumberofAttorney) ^
`Prepared,orassistedinthepreparationof,tinsdocument.
`(NameofFroSeParty(PrintorType)
`SignatureofFroSePaily
`(Date)Executed on;
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 73 Filed 09/15/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`