Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

AL3

Click for more information

2.86%

18.0¢ aml3d limited

General Discussion, page-10

First 10 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
TEGnz

89 Posts.

14

19/03/24

10:24

Post #: 72955261
Share

Originally posted by JØRGANON: ↑

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.

Expand

It looks to me that the "claim" date is still the same as original and first lodgement, 2018, thats the main thing for patents. There is a 12 month timeframe used before lodging for examination, which was firstly in Australia, other countries follow thereafter. It can take an incredibly long time from "lodgement for examination" to the actual examination. Examination itself can then take months sometimes years to get an agreed set of claims between examiner and patent owner before a Patent is accepted. Looks like they got the Oz patent over the line then proceeded with lodging to other countries. Normally you start a patent process by lodging in country of residence and WIPRO. Looks like they did this then lodged the accepted (Aust.) Patent in the US for examination in 2022.
Overall, from time of first date claim to getting a fully examined and accepted patents can take years. Maybe they've had a few challenges from examiners to answer??
My view is that it's fantastic they have their patent accepted in most countries, big one being the EU , hopefully the US follows, but looks like its taking time... paitience I guess

Originally posted by JØRGANON: ↑

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.

Expand

Last edited by TEGnz: 19/03/24

AL3 Price at posting: 7.2¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

MIN

Movers and Shakers: Zip Co, MinRes, Kuniko, more – The week's top ASX gainers

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

MIN

Ellison slapped with $20M sanction from MinRes but will stay on as leader – for now

Week 44 Wrap: Relatively boring week ahead of US election; HotCopper's most watched; Oz inflation at 3.5%

Bitcoin hits fresh record as instos pile into BTC ETFs – and Trump helps, too

There are more pages in this discussion • 31 more messages in this thread...

First 10 Last

Add AL3 (ASX) to my watchlist

(20min delay)
Last 18.0¢		Change 0.005(2.86%)		Mkt cap ! $68.23M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
18.0¢	18.3¢	17.5¢	$137.5K	774.0K

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
4	272121	17.5¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
18.0¢	80517	3

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
4	272121	0.175
10	171846	0.170
8	335607	0.165
14	252744	0.160
11	264322	0.155

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.180	80517	3
0.185	142902	6
0.190	840669	7
0.195	542833	6
0.200	462721	13

Last trade - 16.10pm 04/11/2024 (20 minute delay)

AL3 (ASX) Chart