Heated build chamber patent limitation

Hi,

We don't see a lot of 3d printer equipped with heating chamber because of stratasys patent limitation.

I looked into theses 3 patents
US6722872: [www.google.ca]
US7297304: [www.google.ca]
US20040104515: [www.google.ca]

Basically all independent claims refer to a "x-y-z gantry located external to the build chamber", "thermal separation between the heated build chamber and a gantry that controls motion"
And this one from US 7297304 B2 claim 14: " "the motion control components being located external to and in thermal isolation from the build chamber"

In my opinion stating claims like this is avoiding to patent a heated build chamber with the gantry inside. One reason could be that they could not claim it because of public prior art. It is said to have been an obvious common practice (need proof on this). The other reason that I can see is that there is another patent that I miss on this topic (expired or not).

Quote
US7297304 B2
Existing Stratasys FDM® machines build models in a chamber (also referred to as a build envelope or oven) heated to between 70° C. and 90° C. The base on which the model is built is located in the heated chamber, as are the extrusion head and the x-y-z gantry. Placing the extrusion head and the x-y-z gantry in this heated environment has many disadvantages. The x-y-z gantry is comprised of motion control components, such as motors, bearings, guide rods, belts and cables. Placing these motion control components inside the heated chamber minimizes the life of these components.

I doubt it is not possible to find stepper motor and belt with high operating temp.

Most important: What can legally limit commercial 3d printer to put the gantry inside?

It is unlikely that I am the only one that have noticed this point but I want to understand what we can do and what we cannot. I would like to close the heat chamber not only for greater print results, but also to prevent children from putting their fingers in there, also to catch toxic fumes and prevent dust from contaminating the print surface. I still want to use the heated bed for PLA and PVA. I am sure many of us would benefit from that.

Thank you for your help.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2014 03:15PM by SolidUtopia.

God had first claim on patenting heat when he made the Sun !

The first caveman who discovered that it was easier to cook things in a warm cave than out in the ice and snow has a prior art claim on the use of heated enclosures.

This sort of bs is a total violation of the intention of the whole process of patenting. These guys are just trying it on and would stand zero chance of defending their ridiculous patents in court.

We can discuss more about moral issue regarding to patenting in another topic.

Patent exists and we have to deal with it. What is keeping my attention here is more about what we can or cannot do.

There is nothing preventing you from constructing your own heated chamber.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

I would think that anyone that has closed in all sides of their 3D Printer would have in effect created a "Heated Build Chamber" therefore this is a whole lot of BS. Shame on you for undermining the good intentions that this forum was created around. If I had my way you would be barred from any and all forums.

Quote
akhlut
There is nothing preventing you from constructing your own heated chamber.

Patent infringement doesn't just apply to the sale of items.

There's nothing preventing you from doing it, but you could theoretically be sued for it. Not saying it would ever happen, but they have that option.

Quote
mkelly

Quote
akhlut
There is nothing preventing you from constructing your own heated chamber.

Patent infringement doesn't just apply to the sale of items.

There's nothing preventing you from doing it, but you could theoretically be sued for it. Not saying it would ever happen, but they have that option.

Companies pursuing patent violations against individuals is not an economically viable business model.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Quote
akhlut
Companies pursuing patent violations against individuals is not an economically viable business model.

No it's not, but it's good to at least understand where the limitations are.

IMHO putting everything except stepper motors inside the heated printing chamber won't violate the patent.
There are several bushings/polymer/linear guides whose upper temp limit is well over 110°C, therefore I believe that is not the problem.
The real limiting factor is the installed power (> 1 KW) you need to reliably heat the printing volume...

Best Regards
Davide Ardizzoia

---

==============================
no toys here...sorry

Quote
3ntrlab
The real limiting factor is the installed power (> 1 KW) you need to reliably heat the printing volume...

I can hold 30C over ambient with 100w. Not sure why you'd need 1kw.

The power needed just depends on how well the chamber is insulated.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

I don't know anything about patent infringement but in my mind if you called it a guard and put a safety interlock on the door I don't think they would have a leg to stand on even if you are selling it. Guards are a part of safety on every machine