Here we can see AML3D's Patent applications - US20210016381A1 -...

Here we can see AML3D's Patent applications - US20210016381A1 - Method and apparatus for manufacturing 3d metal parts - Google Patents. Notice how we have Australian, Japanese, Korean and European patents and are still waiting on Singaporean, WIPO and US patents. I believe we have an Indian Patent as well that is not listed here but, notice how the US patent application from 2019 was abandoned and then refiled here in 2022 - US20230144822A1 - Method and apparatus for manufacturing 3d metal parts - Google Patents.

Anyone have any idea why they would abandon their patent application from 2019 and refile in 2022? Australian and Japanese patents took just under 2 years to be granted, Korean in 2.5 years and the Indian and European patents took 3 - 3.5 years respectively. Why would the US patent be dropped after 3.5 years and then reapplied?

Also, interesting note: on March 7th of this year the US patent application was updated with '2024-03-07Assigned to AML3D Limited'. Anyone know what this means? I am assuming the application is nearing completion and this is some sort of milestone but, I would appreciate someone else's input.

I punched both abstracts from each patent application into chat gpt and asked it to tell me the difference between the two and this is what it gave me:

'The two abstracts describe methods for manufacturing metallic parts using solid freeform fabrication techniques, but they differ in some details:

Scope and Environment: The first abstract mentions that the method is "unrestricted in size and open to the ambient atmosphere." This suggests that the manufacturing process can accommodate parts of varying sizes and is not limited by enclosure or controlled environments. The second abstract does not specify whether there are restrictions on size or if the process is open to the ambient atmosphere. It seems to be more general in this aspect.

Welding Torch and Wire Feeding: The first abstract specifies the types of welding torches that can be used: "an electric arc delivered by a high energy tungsten arc welding torch, a plasma transferred arc welding torch, and/or a gas metal arc welding torch." It also mentions a system for feeding a consumable wire. The second abstract does not detail the specific types of welding torches or mention wire feeding systems.

Layer Deposition: Both abstracts describe the process of depositing weld beads layer by layer to build up the part. However, the first abstract emphasizes the use of "computer-generated, direction-specific, layered model" of the part.

Gas Atmosphere and Induction Heating/Cooling: Both abstracts discuss displacing the atmosphere around the heat source with an inert gas atmosphere delivered through gas diffusers. They also mention the engagement of an induction heating and closed-loop cooling apparatus. These aspects are similar in both methods.

Overall, the first abstract provides more detailed information about the specific welding equipment and its compatibility with different sizes and environmental conditions, while the second abstract is more focused on the general process of solid freeform fabrication.' (Chat GPT).

Really don't get why they would drop a more specific patent application for a more general one. Nor why this is necessary considering the successful patent applications in Australia, Japan, Korea, India and the EU. My guess is that there was some sort of overlap with other US welding patents from a company like Lincoln Electric or something and that this was rectified.