Hi folks, does anybody have some clear information regarding ‘heated build chambers’ for 3D printers ? Is this still patented by Stratasys ?
I found some information claiming that the patent only applies to heated chambers with motors OUTSIDE the build chamber.
Thanks in advance !
Commenting for further updates.
There are three patents that cover heated build chambers:
https://www.google.com/patents/US20040104515
https://www.google.com/patents/US7297304
And
https://www.google.com/patents/US6722872
They all describe a heated chamber with the motion control system physically outside of and thermally isolated from the heated chamber, so if you were to build one with the gantry and/or motors inside the heated chamber I would expect you to be outside those patents.
…but depending on how big you get or how litigious they’re feeling stratasys may still threaten you with legal action.
@Stephen_Baird so if you enclose the entire printer within a heated enclosure that would be fine?
I believe so.
I am a lawyer, but I don’t practice patent law, so while I do know things about it I’m very much not an expert.
The patents don’t cover the general concept of a heated build chamber, only this specific implementation of the concept. So if your implementation of the concept differs it’s a separate process from what’s patented here and you’re ok.
You could (probably) even be ok if you stuck the motors outside the heated chamber but left the entire gantry inside. So basically the design of the HercuLien or Eustathios (a scaled up ultimaker in aluminum extrusion with plexiglass enclosing the walls and a hinged lid on top).
Quick reminder that I am not a lawyer and am not offering legal advice.
So patent US 6722872 B1 is the earliest one I can find referencing the heated build chamber, and it only refers to a chamber essentially with motors located externally to the build chamber. They make references as if there’s another patent that first described the build chamber being heated with motors internal, but I couldn’t find it.
That patent would still be in effect now, presumably with the 20 year term since it was filed after 1995, and that also means 20 years from the priority date of June 23, 1999.
How could “a heated build chamber” even be patentable, other than a design patent.
It’s a heated chamber with motors on the outside.
I have a paint oven that is a heated chamber with motors on the outside. Does that put me in violation of a Stratasys patent?
If I use IR lamps to heat the work piece and don’t use a chamber, am I ok?
@mark_warlick there was a time period where the patent office would grant a patent for “Do X in a 3D printer” even though X wasn’t novel or patentable in itself.
Stratasys claims the most broad heated chamber patent on controlling the temperature of the print-in-progress to maintain the plastic within a particular creep / stress relaxation zone for the polymer to prevent warping… that one was very novel and clever and patent-worthy at the time, even though it seems obvious now. But it’s also fairly easy to circumvent by running the heated chamber a little cooler below the optimal temp, iirc.
Then there are the hardware implementation patents for heated chambers… the most important aspect in my view is the use of “deformable insulators” to separate the heated region from heat-sensitive gantry components and the extruder cold end. Again, pretty easy to circumvent by putting the gantry inside the heated chamber. You just run into issues with belts and motors if you want to print any real exotics like PC or ULTEM.
Patents…banning common sense since the notion of a patent was started.
@Ryan_Carlyle
Well, I can see where they can patent a means or process for heating the workpiece, but if I want to heat the interface by preceding the print head with my 2 watt laser, then I can, right?
Oops!
Maybe I should have patented that!
@mark_warlick you can pretty much do what you want with your own setup, you’ll only ever run into issues if you try to sell something that has a part Stratasys thinks they own a patent for.
@Adam_Steinmark
I’m more interested in selling tools than using them, personally.
I think a welding robot is the best 3d printer configuration.
They’ve been 3d printers the whole time, we just didn’t know it back in the day.
@mark_warlick laser thing sounds pretty awesome actually 
wouldn’t infringe at all I think. Also a good way to burn your house down, but hey, that’s the cost of progress! You can patent in the US within 1 year of public disclosure of the invention. Can’t patent in the EU after disclosing though.
@Adam_Steinmark in the US, personal use is still infringement, but Stratasys has never sued hobbyists for infringement so it’s probably safe. The early RepRap days were massively infringing in the US between ~2007 and 2009 (when the base FDM patent expired).
@Ryan_Carlyle seriously? Patent law is ridiculous.
@Ryan_Carlyle
2 watts isn’t going to burn down the house unless you try really hard, and put some matches in play, but it will melt a hole in a CD case in a few seconds.
It will melt a thin layer pdq though, and I would think that would reduce layering effects and make the piece a bit stronger with no need to heat the entire mass.
@mark_warlick 2 watts… aimed at a tiny patch of flammable plastic with more combustion energy per kilogram than gasoline. Gotta consider the lockup/freeze case. It happens.
Depends on the plastic, seriously. ABS burns really well. PLA burns. Polycarbonate and PETG will self-extinguish upon removal of ignition source.
@Ryan_Carlyle
I’ve lit cigarettes with it, but never been able to get any plastic to ignite, though not for lack of trying.
It’s fun to shoot mosquitoes with it though.
I have managed to weld ABS with it, though it’s quite slow going.
@mark_warlick Are you one of those guys trying to give yourself skin cancer by playing with blue lasers without an enclosure? lol
@Ryan_Carlyle
Not an ambition of mine, actually.
Thanks a lot for the informations everyone !
@Stephen_Baird & @Justin_Nesselrotte & @Ryan_Carlyle thanks a lot Good to know, and matches the information I found as well, although what you say about a sort of ‘legally gray’ area is very worrysome to be honest, depending on the goodwill of Statasys is not my idea of fun
But at least the fully enclosed option seems viable without threats.
@mark_warlick ah yes, the whole thing is so insanely absurd : the oven example is the one I often use to point out how stupid granting these patents is.