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.
Look at salary history. Recent salary was less than earlier ones.
Any applicant organization or principal investigator who, in OCAST’s judgment, has failed to correct a material breach of contract previously awarded under any of OCAST programs will not be eligible to be awarded a new funding contract.
If a PI under an OARS contract becomes unable to perform the proposed research, the applicant organization must inform OCAST within 10 days. The contractor shall inform OCAST within 10 days of the occurrence of any of the following:
1. The official notification of resignation by the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
2. The official decision to terminate the principal investigator or co-investigator as an employee of one of the parties to the contract.
3. Inability of the principal investigator or co-investigator to perform the research due to disability or other condition(s).
4. Any occurrence which the contractor or agent determines will affect the successful completion of the research project.
5. The majority of the research is not performed in Oklahoma.
6. Receipt of notification of award of concurrent funding by the principal investigator or co-investigator, which is not part of the approved matching monies requirement, to support any portion(s) of the research which is supported by OCAST funds.
Any of the conditions in Items 1-6 above may result in the termination of the contract at the discretion of OCAST. If the PI is subsequently employed by another eligible applicant organization in the state of Oklahoma that agrees to support the research project, OCAST may consider issuing a new contract negotiated between OCAST and the new organization. If a PI cannot perform on a contract, the applicant organization may request that OCAST consider continuing the contract with a new PI.
The goal of the proposed project is to improve the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a commercially viable product prototype that can be rapidly transitioned to commercial production. The two components are the image chamber and the optical and electronic subsystems that control the image creation process. For the image chamber, materials and fabrication processes must be identified and developed to scale the chamber up to 26 cm3 and also to produce cheaply and easily chambers of different sizes.. For image generation, nanoparticles capable of highly efficient upconversion of infrared light to visible light must be designed and optimized so that the image is visible under room lighting and the power requirements of the display are minimized. The image chamber will consist of the nanoparticles dispersed in an index-matched polymer. The optical and electronic subsystems must be improved to create images that fill the image chamber, have a voxel (volume pixel) size of 0.25 mm3, a resolution of nearly 800 million voxels, and a refresh rate of 30 Hz to provide flicker free viewing. At project's end, the resultant display will possess capabilities suitable for applications in computer and data visualization and in novel human-computer interfaces. To create the targeted 3D display, several objectives must be met. The first objective is to identify and optimize highly efficient two-photon, two-frequency upconversion particles to provide increased image intensity for lower optical driving power. The size, doping concentration, and core/shell morphology of Er:NaYF4 and similar nanoparticles will be varied systematically and the efficiency evaluated. The second objective is to synthesize and optimize polymers with high optical clarity that are index matched to the nanoparticles to minimize losses in resolution and efficiency due to scattering. The combination of polymer host and nanoparticle efficiency that produces the brightest and clearest image will be selected. The third objective is to upgrade the key optical, electronic, and software systems that control image creation to achieve the targeted resolution and image size. The project will use a combination of experimental research and theoretical modeling to meet the stated goals and objectives. The project builds upon prior research and development of prototype systems by 3DIcon Corporation.
The problem is that they need a PI with a track record. They obviously must have decent grant writers with how much they spent on them.
The reason they lost the OCAST funding was they could not find a suitable replacement when Hakki left.
His work product from his time at TDCP belongs to the company and not to him.
How his time working as a consultant figures in is anyone's guess.
It is disturbing that the investors were not aware of his actual employer-employee relationship until the OPTECKS discussion started.
Where is Sluss in this and when did his relationship with TDCP terminate?
When a PI fails to deliver at one company, why should he be assumed to be successful on something similar at another?
OCAST funding is odd. It would be interesting to see the budget.
Badia is listed as receiving the grant. I wonder if that is because it is a different product or to hide the prior relationship with TDCP.
Since OU owns stock in TDCP and Optecks is an LLC owned by Hakki and Badia, why should OU buy in? Also, the SRA deeded patent use to TDCP; the attorneys should have an interesting problem should Hakki need the prior work.
Who is up for an ORA request to OU for Optecks and TDCP facilities use and another to OCAST for the grant documents?
OCAST June 15 announcement just popped up on search for OPTECKS. It looks like they received an OARS award. There is not an indication on this news release of the amount - typically would be between $90K and $300K depending on the type.
Actually, the OCAST award was not terminated until June.
Remember, there must be proof of payment of the match in order to get funds.
The applicable solicitation is no longer on the website but the latest is only slightly different in the requirements.
OPENBOOKSOK and the VENDOR DETAIL selection will permit you to input parameters to obtain all payments from OCAST to 3DICON.
It has been having problems returning data the last couple of weeks so patience is needed to get the info out but there is data there.
I was only reporting that my info about the termination of the OCAST grant is several months after Hakki's departure. I have no info on the reporting to the SEC.
I would have expected that Hakki's casual rather than permanent employment should have already been reported. The departure of a contract employee is far different than a permanent one, IMO.
TDCP properly advised OCAST that Hakki had left and had several months to provide a substitute PI to OCAST. Only when they did not do so by the deadline (not in March) was the grant withdrawn. OCAST is subject to Open Records Act requests. Use them to get the real dates.
IMO, TSCP was in compliance with OCAST rules. The rules do not prevent a PI from participating as such on multiple projects. I find someone doing so on such similar projects to really be walking a thin line since it becomes difficult to sort out what happened when and for which company.
I also suggest that anyone interested in whether Hakki is going forward with CSPACE next generation with OCAST funding, watch for upcoming OARS announcements.
So what did the money ($7600) pay for?
Does anyone know which solicitation at NIH?
If they are trading stock for lab time, Okies should be throwing a fit.
If that is where the money went then it doesn't look like they paid to rent the auditorium.
It is amazing that so many showed up.
He should not be in OU lab without agreement in place - and $$ changing hands.
OCAST funding terminated mid-June
Are there any ideas as to how the shareholders briefing money was spent? Travel? OU fees? OR ...?
SRAs are revenue neutral - or they are when the partner pays their bills. I do not know whey the research was allowed to continue when they were not current in payments.
There are major problems in the financials I have looked at. Interest is not even charged on overdue balances.
I expect the Keating name, the OU administrator as PI, and family connections had a lot to do with it.
The only ones who seems to have benefitted are Hakki, his wife and the PI who got a promotion.
Why should OU have anything more to do with them since they did not get paid the last time. Granted the university has stock but research cost real dollars which has to come from somewhere.
Thanks for the update. I know OCAST was properly notified and could have approved the PI substitution. Apparently, they did not; OCAST does not publish award withdrawals, only grants. Your information is more recent than mine.
It is a shame that this opportunity was lost. It should serve as a warning to all that relying on an award as a guarantee of future success even with the rave reviews is not good policy.
Early this year TDCP submitted the proper notice to OCAST regarding Hakki's leaving and naming substitute. I have not heard of a withdrawal of funding. TDCP could request an extension at the expiration of the current award period; it may or may not be granted.
Some agency solicitations have clauses regarding the departure of the PI prior to the award being granted and also permit the PI to take the award to his new employer. Since no one appears to know the NIH solicitation ID, there is no way to determine if either of these apply.
How do you know OCAST cancelled the grant?
I don't know of any "jointly" owned IP/patents. I don't remember anything explicitly addressing ownership of the rights to the OU patents upon sale of the company. That was not a possibility I was concerned about at the time I last read the SRA.
I am confused by your post. I believe only the last is TDCP's patent. Look at the Assignee and filing (not issue) dates.
It sure would be nice if the OCAST funding could be claimed. There is time yet.
One of the OU documents defines the date at which work before is OU's and work after is others. I don't recall the exact date but know it was several years ago and certainly predates the latest patent application.
Hakki was the PI on the OCAST proposal listing. He continues to be the registered agent.
It will be interesting to see if OPTECKS gets OCAST funding this cycle.
Who at TDCP is qualified to set the specs?
Since the PI and his credentials are a significant component of the award processing, I wonder about the effect of Hakki's leaving the company on the agencies' decisions. I doubt the "we'll find someone to do the work after we get the money" is going to be a positive for any decision.
Other than Hakki's prior work at and continuing personal relationships there, why should OU grant his company the rights given he was a key person in TDCP and did not make a go of it with their connections?
Announced by company or on NIH website search?
Not yet. I am looking for OPTECKS as well.
Look also for OCAST PR announcements on their website. 2015 OARS deadline was in March.
For SBIR/STTR awards
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/award/all
I have the most reliable searches by state
That one works. This is another search location:
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
The federal agencies announce their awards. It is unclear as to how often their databases are updated. I would not expect a company to be able to affect the public announcement.
From the same solicitation? There are many simultaneous or overlapping open at any given time.
They need money to get OCAST money. It requires a 1:1 match.