Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[jjsmith77]

MDuffy, here is your answer. The patent and reapplication are the same. See the breakdown:

The differences between the 2 documents are that 1 has an approval dated in 2010. The REAPPLICATION 2013 is the same document but has the patent statement "cleaned up".

The 2010 document CLAIM items 4 to 11 (8 items) is made into a paragraph on the 2013 document DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION [0026]. This is why the CLAIM numbers are different. 27 - 8 = 19. This why the 2013 document has 19 claim items.

All items are the same in the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION between the two documents. The difference is the 2013 [0040] item starts a new paragraph. There is a correction in grammar in 2010: laser [0048] processes
..............................................................and the 2013: laser processes, [0048]
Every number is “pushed back” because of the grammar correction. This is why there is [0060] and [0059] between 2010 and 2013 respectively.

Pretty much the same patent.

Aslo, I believe Sigma Lab’s reapplication for patent is to extend the service life of PrintRite3D. Patents are valid from the date of application, not from the later date of approval. This is to prevent a “submarine patent”. This procedure stems from the barcode inventor who was a brilliant man with over 600 patents. In his late years, he became known infamously for patent infringement litigations because he buried the ORIGINAL patent application with repeated reapplications and sued unsuspecting people. His legal oppositions coined the term "submarine patent" for his actions. Thus, patents are now protected 20 years from the date of application, not approval. PrintRite3D was first applied in 2009. I think Sigma is wise to reapply to "gain" 5 years for a full 20 year patent protection when approved in 2014.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/12/14/the-patent-troll-you-dont-read-about-in-bar-code-inventors-obituaries/