[HN Gopher] Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?
___________________________________________________________________
Is 3D printing being held back by an invalid patent?
Parts made using the FFM (FDM) process are stronger in some
directions than in others. This is due to imperfect adhesion
between printed layers. This directional or anisotropic structural
strength is a significant limiting factor for the structural
integrity of 3d printed parts made with the common FFM process. A
method to drastically reduce this effect is described in an expired
Stratasys patent, US1997/5653925A. As of this writing, I have not
seen this feature implemented in any of the common open-source
slicers. I would have expected this now-public-domain knowledge to
have made its way into the slicers we use since the patent expired
in 2017. With some investigation, I believe this may be because of
the 2023 patent US2023/11813789B2, to my knowledge only implemented
as a proprietary in-house product of a 3d printing service house
which appears to make the same claims illustrated in the 1997
Stratasys patent. I am not expertly versed in patent law, but this
patent would seem to have been granted in error. The fact that the
2023 patent actually references the Stratasys patent from 1997*
makes the issuance of this patent even more baffling. At any rate,
this seems like a low-hanging opportunity for a significant
improvement in print strength that could benefit millions of users.
*The 2023 patent references the 1997 Stratasys patent as "teaching
a process for adjusting the deposition rate .. to provide a
predetermined porosity rate" but neglects to mention that the core
claim of the patent was the staggered bead heights claimed. In
referencing the 1997 patent the 2023 work also gives a single-digit
error in the patent number, as well as other "minor" errors in
other patent numbers referenced in the patent. These misleading
references could have impeded the examiner's role in determining
the validity of the patent. https://patentimages.storage.googleapi
s.com/08/f6/2b/d3d996474f4de2/US11813789.pdf https://patentimages.
storage.googleapis.com/ea/e7/3c/2b836c9a51e18b/US5653925.pdf
Looking up the 2023 patent filer leads to this:
https://www.addmangroup.com/
Author : K0balt
Score : 72 points
Date : 2024-11-10 19:56 UTC (3 hours ago)
| giantg2 wrote:
| Can't you request a separate patent if you're making substantial
| improvements to it? No idea if that's what happened here, but I'm
| just saying it's not surprising that a new patent would reference
| old patents.
|
| Edit: sorry, seems to be a dupe.
| realityloop wrote:
| I think the issue is that there doesn't appear to be anything
| substantially different in the newer patent this YouTube video
| covers it pretty well https://youtu.be/9IdNA_hWiyE
| realityloop wrote:
| I'm not sure but this may be of interest to the Electronic
| Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-cases
| Meleagris wrote:
| Relevant video on the subject, discussing brick layers, and the
| patents:
|
| https://youtu.be/9IdNA_hWiyE
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Some related discussion in here:
|
| _Ask HN: Why did consumer 3D printing take so long to be
| invented?_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42079086
| giantg2 wrote:
| Can't you request a separate patent if you're making substantial
| improvements to it? No idea if that's what happened here, but I'm
| just saying it's not surprising that a new patent would reference
| old patents.
|
| I assume that for most things the current tech is durable enough.
| If it needs to be more durable, going with cast, forged, or even
| mim metal instead of geometry changes would be better. If you
| really want geometry stuff, just design one yourself. Use three
| nozzles - a primary vertical down, two trailing secondaries
| opposing each other on slightly doward angles and slightly above
| the primary. Put all the nozzles on the same head but with
| steppers driving eccentrics to adjust height for each nozzle for
| areas where only a combination or single nozzle can be used.
| You'll effectively build a three layered wall with offset layers.
| Simultaneous printing allows better adhesion by row, and the
| staggered design provides increased interconnectivity between
| each strand.
| manuel_w wrote:
| This post seems very well researched. It's great that OP has
| brought this up. If we could push further the state of the art in
| 3D printing, by simply no longer adhering to an (now proven to be
| invalid) patent, it's a no-brainer to do so.
| atrettel wrote:
| This comment is not legal advice. This comment is merely for
| educational purposes.
|
| The quote that you have about the 1997 patent, namely "U.S. Pat.
| No. 5,659,925 teaches a process for adjusting the deposition
| rate..." is from the specification. That is written by either the
| inventors or more likely the attorneys filing the application.
| The specification is not legally enforceable or binding. It is
| supposed to disclose enough information to let somebody reproduce
| the claimed invention. As a matter of practice, the specification
| can say almost anything it wants, including non-enforceable
| things.
|
| Only the claims are legally enforceable. I suggest taking a
| closer look at the claims and seeing if these are problematic for
| your application or not. You may want to consult an attorney if
| you have further questions.
|
| You can look up the patent examiner's reasoning for allowing the
| application here:
|
| https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17667081
|
| Click on "Documents and Transactions" and look for "Notice of
| Allowance and Fees Due". Also look for the "Non-Final Rejection"
| for additional information from the examiner from an earlier
| version of the application.
|
| I should note that it does not appear that the patent examiner
| considered the 1997 patent directly relevant because they did not
| cite it in any of the office actions or specifically the PTO-892
| forms (search the documents page for 892 to see what I'm talking
| about). However, they likely did at least look at it since it is
| listed in the specification.
|
| Again, if you have further questions, you really should consult
| an attorney. This is not a good forum for this kind of
| discussion, in my opinion.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-10 23:00 UTC)