Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes, Thanks....I had looked it up on PublicPAir and had seen this indication...
"04-12-2018 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU," and was unfamiliar with the acronym GAU. I looked up GAU in Brown and Michaels and here's their indication of meaning, at bottom...
I don't recall any such indication in re to the other patent application we have been communicating about. Would you think that there is some particular area of niche specialization that regards this patent application and not the other one you have been tracking?
"GAU - Group Art Unit - an organizational unit of the USPTO, usually made up of a group of examiners and headed by an SPE, the GAU will examine applications in a given area of technology. GAU's are grouped into Tech Centers."
Ok, now I've looked back into the earlier transaction history on 20160184893 and I do see references to transfer to GAU just as indicated on 4-12-18 in re this one.
US Patent Application 20160199911 - There has been some recent activity as Vis posted earlier in the day. Anyone with patent process knowledge who can take a look and share insight about status and what this may mean?
Looks to me like Rice will be appropriately vested and incentivized. Which provision specifically do you object to?
Jeff, I know I asked you this some time ago, but do you have any idea how this patent application relates to the others? Also, on the CC Rice said something about competitors not knowing "what we've got" Clearly he was referring to the patent applications and inability to see at least some portions of the files. Do you think he was perhaps referring to more recent applications that would not have been published yet? Once patents are published aren't they open and public, which is what allows us to check these files, as you have been?
Ted, yes, thanks -- I did see, on closer read/comparison, after the Rice and Fisher filings came through. I'm pleased to see that the executives did not receive shares outright and will need to pay in order to exercise their options, should they choose to, and that the strike prices are a bit higher than current market, (though in familiar vicinity to the recent market price).
These option awards ought to incentivize officers' performance, which of course is potentially a good thing.
Share Acquisition....Does anyone recall what the options vesting provisions are for the BOD, in re to today's share acquisition? I'm assuming these were exercised options as the filings indicate $0 cost.
Stratonics - How differs from Sigma's technology? Anybody know?
Mason et al, as it looks to be the case that Stratonics was involved in some of the same collaborative research as Sigma, "B6Sigma," wouldn't they, at least at the time of the outset of these projects, have had something different to contribute? Might their focus and knowledge base be somehow different than Sigma's? Perhaps even complementary? Thank you
Ted et al - I recall seeing the "acquired certain assets of..." but here's a release which appears to indicate that the old firm was acquired altogether by Haynie. Clearly a non-isssue for us, seems to me.
http://hayniecpas.com/uncategorized/haynie-and-company-acquires-psh/
I've been invested in several emerging growth companies. It's customary to raise add'l funds by add'l share issuance and particularly in cases of private placements, which you'll always see at a discount to the current market, the market doesn't necessarily move down to the new issuance price.
There are several possible reasons it doesn't necessarily work that way, in my opinion...
1. It's generally understood that the discounting of shares off of the current public market price is required to get the deal done...Which means that the shares aren't then thought to be worth the lesser, negotiated price.
2. Cash infusion to the company improves solvency and flexibility
3. Vote of confidence by the private investors who may be more sophisticated than the average small retail investor.
"The wording is a little wonky in that the 'purpose' is not that of the money but of the hires that the money enables. A lawyer must have written this."
In my opinion, they're simply making an effort to be specific, in order to preempt claims and conclusions of their spending the bulk of the money for "general corporate purposes." I think they would hope that we would take their indications of the purpose for the money at face value and infer that they believe traditional revenue is on its way...both by the relatively small $ raise, and the stated purpose for the money; additional hiring.
As you say, I also will wait and see, but in my opinion, I feel pretty decent about these indications.
Quote:
The Company intends to use the net proceeds of this offering (i) to make additional hires with metallurgical and software expertise for the purpose of accelerating and completing the development of tools with Signature/Solution libraries and artificial intelligence facets that are designed to enable sophisticated closed loop control of additive manufacturing machines for real time quality assurance or rescue, (ii) to acquire additional software and customer support personnel for production implementations, and (iii) for other working capital and general corporate purposes.
Jackle, Firstly, I certainly hope that you are right. Here are my thoughts...as to the notion of the delay in filing which would have been unnecessary "...if not a lot was happening...," as you say, the 10-k applies to the year ended 12-31-17. If there had been any material event...either a piece of business or M/A activity within 2017 that would have been required to have been reported well before now, (plus the successful authorized expansion vote just occurred recently), and also the company seemingly would have wanted to publicize such news at their earliest opportunity.
On the other hand, if the choice to file the NT extension is really about, or partly about, buying time to reach terms on a contract which mgmt believes they are close to closing or an M/A deal, then that could perhaps be an explanation... ? I always appreciate your perspectives and am wondering if the latter is perhaps what you meant (?)
Thank you and GLTA! Go Sigma!
"Well this is exciting, finally. A company who has historically filed in a timely manner, has indicated pursuing m+a opportunities aggressively as well as hinted expecting bigger contracts soon delays it's filing. It's not hard to issue a filing if not a lot was happening, very straightforward. This i expect is the start of something, either solid revenues or m+a. Time will soon tell... Very happy to see this this morning, very happy indeed."
What does this mean?
"Well that stinks on ice. Still a bit of time left." What is the applicable regulation? And what is the bit of time left that you refer to? ie how long? Thank you
Is this the “one day prior” patent app? Either way, do we have an idea of its relative importance vs Signa’s other patent apps?
Thank you
Jeff, Thanks for tracking and posting this. I've read through the response. Any additional context or perspective would be appreciated.
Capt, where did you come across this photo? Thank you
Jackle - This is such a lengthy publication. Can you direct us to an approximate location to find the context/location of the excerpt regarding Sigma?
Thank you
n2thefuture, count me among the investor posters whose strong opinion is that a vote to increase the authorized makes far more sense than a vote against. I like Sigma's odds better if they are not hamstrung by a tiny authorized share base and I'd far prefer to own less of the company in exchange for a better funded company with flexibility, due to an increased number of shares. Sigma is no guarantee, but I have no doubt that our odds are better with the proposed increase in the authorized approved.
Jeff, Hawks -
Is there any particular part of the webinar replay that you would call our attention to?
Thank you
If a question is directed to someone other than yourself, you ought to give that contributor an appropriate amount of time, (at least 24 hours), to answer the question his/herself. Your answer is empty and obvious and inappropriately rude. Jackal may have some other point of reasoning to contribute.
Jackle,
Can you put this in context, please, for Sigma Labs?
Jeff, why do you think so?
Thank you
Jeff, can you explain your thinking, please? What is it that you see that leads you to believe that there is not only movement within this application file, but possible progress towards patent issuance?
Thank you
Jeff, by "progressing" do you mean only that there is evidence of activity and not necessarily of progress in the sense of Sigma's patent claim? In other words, no indication re the direction of the outcome one way or another? Or, could the recent activity, without any certainty of outcome, of course, be taken as a good sign, in and of itself?
Thank you
Jeff, as the engineer among us, are you able to offer any opinion about the list of references cited by examiner? Is there anything there that reveals or adds any color to the issues that the examiner may be grappling with, with the application?
Thanks Jeff, so a receipt of a response, in your opinion would indicate that Sigma made some sort of adjustment to their application and that the Patent Office's response is part of a back and forth of sorts?
Yes. In December, a resonse was received and a 'non-final' reply was sent by the USPTO.
Do you know when to expect the replay to be posted? Where on Ansys' site to locate the webinar once it is posted? Any identifying info to help us locate the right webinar, once the replay is available? title?
Thanks -- Was there a Q/A opportunity? And if so, was the Sigma mention in response to a question?
Vis, What was the title of the webinar? Was the mention of Sigma within a segment of the webinar that was specific to FLEX?
Thank you
Jeff, I recall that you've noted indications of activity with one of the patent applications a few months ago. Is the activity that you're observing signs of in regard to the same patent application, and very recent?
Thank you
Jackle,
Does EWI function in a similar fashion here in the States, to LZN, in Germany? I don't recall seeing much discussion of EWI here on the board, previously.
Yes, and also seems to fit, generally speaking, in terms of 2017 developments for Sigma such as 3DSim and LZN.
Thanks for the primer - This is what we are trying to reconcile with the info you posted....The simple and seemingly obvious appearance would be that the information you reference applies only to the entity "Sabby Management," Indeed, the 235,461 attributable here to "Sabby Management" does match the number you reference for "Sabby Management." . However, because filings aren't always straightforward, I was, and still am open to other explanations of the possible meaning of the below, which includes figures for three other Sabby related entities. Your explanation doesn't appear to reconcile or address the difference.
(Excerpted from yesterday's filing...)
(a)
Amount beneficially owned:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 154,264
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 228,718
Sabby Management, LLC - 235,461
Hal Mintz - 235,461
(b)
Percent of class:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 3.27%
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 4.85%
Sabby Management, LLC - 4.99%
Hal Mintz - 4.99%
Let's see if we can clear up the convolution on what the listing meant. It's not as scary as it looks.
Here's the first paragraph of the listing:
Quote:
January 08, 2018 - Sabby Management, LLC has filed an SC 13G/A form with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing ownership of 235,461 shares of Sigma Labs, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGLB). This represents 4.99 percent ownership of the company. In their previous filing dated February 15, 2017, Sabby Management, LLC had reported owning 250,000 shares, indicating a decrease of -5.82 percent.
They actual summarize it quite nicely. The purpose of the filing was "indicating a decrease". You could calculate that by following along with the arithmetic:
- Previous holding: 250,000
- Current holding: 235,461
If you look at those numbers, the current holding is less than the previous holdings, so it's a decrease. To get more fancy you could actually perform the calculation yourself on a calculator - just enter the Previous Holding number first (250,000), then the "-" sign, then the Current Holdings number (235,461). And that will give you how many shares they decreased their holdings. If I had more time I would explain how to calculate the percentage - maybe look that up on Google.
Good luck with that.
Hawks, can you post what you are seeing re Sabby's warrant holdings? In answer to your question, it appears to me -- though I cannot promise, as the filings can be a little convoluted -- that they have increased their position, when judging their position size in the aggregate, ie across different Sabby entities and in Hal Mintz's name, (Sabby principal).
Also, if this is wrong then the reduction in the shares held under the name "Sabby Management" appears to be 1. modest and 2. to have been for the purpose of reducing that holding just beneath the 5% threshold to 4.99%, rather than a reduction driven by an investment value consideration.
That's in my opinion, of course.
From Nov PR regarding Sigma as an option for FLEX.... “FLEX users can run a simulation that predicts what a high speed, non-contact pyrometer in their AM machine would “see”, much like a “print preview” function for word processing software. There are many competitors in the market claiming the ability to simulate portions of the AM process. 3DSIM is the only company that provides a commercially available tool that simulates the response of sensors in an AM machine. By predicting PrintRite3D® outputs, Sigma Labs and 3DSIM together offer unparalleled capability for their customers,” says Dr. Brent Stucker, CEO of 3DSIM.
Speaking again of 3Dsim and Ansys, here's something I had missed in my research on the companies...
As I've commented previously I think it's very likely that Ansys was well aware of and may have given their blessing to the cooperation between 3DSim and Sigma on FLEX because Ansys' buyout CLOSED such a short time after the announcement of the Printrite module/ optional use with FLEX. And to see that Ansys advertises, in general, partnering with companies with hardware and software technologies to extend the functionality of their software....is a reminder to me and further confirms what I perceive as a very high likelihood that Ansys' position on Printrite and its value matches 3Dsim's founder's position on Printrite when used together with FLEX.
If you haven't read what 3DSim's founder said about Printrite, look up the press release regarding the announcement of Printrite as an optional feature with FLEX.
In my opinion the FLEX development is the most encouraging of all news items of 2017 in terms of validation of the value of Printrite.
From Ansys' site... (Note the paragraph titled "Extending the Solution" below...
"Products
ANSYS offers a comprehensive software suite that spans the entire range of physics, providing access to virtually any field of engineering simulation that a design process requires. Organizations around the world trust ANSYS to deliver the best value for their engineering simulation software investment.
Simulation-driven product development takes engineering simulation to another level ? the unequalled depth and breadth of our software coupled with its unmatched engineered scalability, comprehensive multiphysics foundation and adaptive architecture set our technology apart from other CAE tools. These ANSYS advantages add value to the engineering design process by delivering efficiency, driving innovation and reducing physical constraints enabling simulated tests that might not be possible otherwise.
Extending the Solution
By partnering with key hardware and independent software vendor, we extend our product functionality even further to ensure you get the most accurate solution in the least amount of time."
Link to Ansys' Product page
http://www.ansys.com/products?utm_source=AdWords&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TN-ANSYS-EX&utm_device=c&utm_adposition=1t1&utm_content=193398322982&utm_phone=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv8eIk9bL2AIVrLftCh0wqQaXEAAYASAAEgJyHvD_BwE
GR1D, Pleased to be a member of your respected jury. I'm inclined to think about this a bit further, but it's likely that I will vote IN FAVOR. Among my several thoughts on the matter -- I wonder if indeed Sabby and related interests have as much of the company as it appears to me they may, based upon my understanding of their filing, plus other institutional interests and management ownership -- how many individual investor shares are even needed to exceed 50% of the outstanding base of shares. (Presuming institutional investors vote IN FAVOR, which would seem likely to me).
On the other hand, I felt that it was quite likely that the vote was going to pass last time around, and of course we know that it didn't. So, maybe our votes will make the difference, one way or the other.
No guarantees of what management will do with the money from additional share sales. That is, whether or not an acquisition will occur. If I force myself to make a guess -- acquisition/merger or not, should the authorized be increased -- I would say it's probably somewhat more likely than not.
I've been thinking that the additional BOD seat perhaps hasn't been filled yet, despite the NASDAQ requirement because of negotiations and plans with a buyout or merger candidate who might be a prospective occupant of that seat. It didn't appear to be difficult to obtain board members last year and I doubt that Sigma is struggling to find a qualified candidate who would be willing to serve. So, it may be that the BOD is waiting a bit longer until the authorized is perhaps expanded and potential buyout/merger negotiations are finalized, to appoint that required member of the BOD. Otherwise, why wait with the appointment? So, that ongoing vacancy could be a hopeful sign.
I'm not opposed to the idea of an increase in the authorized for employee and board member compensation. While Mark has a good number of shares, consider how few shares John Rice has given his apparent commitment to the company and the quality of his experience and background. I know this may be an unpopular view, but I'd like to see the whole team more substantially vested in the company's future -- So from the standpoint of flexibility to compensate and vest the team, I'm not opposed to the authorized increase. And in Rice's case he's drawing a decent salary so I'm not saying that I don't think he's being appropriately compensated, but some equity in the company could only encourage his long-term involvement and commitment all the more.
Anyway, I could go on with further thoughts, but I think I'll leave it at that and a probable YES vote for now and perhaps weigh in additionally, later.
Silver, If this info is accurate it looks to be 854,000 shares in the aggregate for Sabby entities and principal....
The small adjustment down for "Sabby Management" would appear to me to have been in the interest of reducing to just a hair beneath 5%, perhaps to avoid having to report trading activity as regularly or quickly as would be required of an entity holding 5% or more. (That's a guess).
(a)
Amount beneficially owned:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 154,264
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 228,718
Sabby Management, LLC - 235,461
Hal Mintz - 235,461
(b)
Percent of class:
Sabby Healthcare Master Fund, Ltd. - 3.27%
Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. - 4.85%
Sabby Management, LLC - 4.99%
Hal Mintz - 4.99%
Anybody able to confirm whether Sabby has 235,461 shares total, or whether that is the shareholding of Sabby Management only, and does not include the other Sabby entities and Mintz's holdings?