3D Printer HardwareAM ResearchCopyright and IPIndustry RoundupVolumetric 3D Printing

Competition heats up over volumetric 3D printing patents

Stay up to date with everything that is happening in the wonderful world of AM via our LinkedIn community.

Volumetric printing, as we reported, has arrived in the form of the xolo xube, but this revolutionary technology already faces contenders for volumetric printing patents. A United States patent filed by Mr. Daniel Clark of Topshelf Enterprises (T3DP) and Southern Methodist University claims technology similar to xolo’s volumetric process. Mr. Clark points to his pending patent as occupying the field in which xolo has released a product.

3dpbm first reported on T3DP in 2019, when the startup suggested that it was on the cusp of 3D printing solar cells via volumetric technology.

Patents grant exclusive rights to inventors for their inventions, which allows intellectual property to generate value. Patents recorded in the United States and in Europe may also be recorded by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Once recorded, the patent may be filed based on the one international filing in the 153 other jurisdictions that have adhered to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

In this case, Mr. Clark’s volumetric printing patent is the subject of an American and an international process. The patent remains, however, pending approval at both levels and is thus at present not enforceable.

The patent claims the invention of a machine that fixes resin in a chamber using three ‘photonic energy emitters’. These light sources operationalize the theory of volumetric printing, which involves creating a three-dimensional shape based on projected cross-sections that cure the photo-sensitive material filling a spinning chamber. Once printing is complete, the remaining material is drained out of the chamber.

A schematic filed with Mr. Clark's volumetric printing patent
A schematic filed with Mr. Clark’s volumetric printing patent. Note the intersecting lines of energy that are used to fix the shape as the chamber spins.

xolo’s process does not appear in patent searches, but a quick view of its machine shows that a similar process is at work. Patents, however, do not deny others the right to use processes that are invented independently of another process and that function differently in some critical respect; the exclusive right to replicate an invention is assigned to a process rather than a concept.

Volumetric 3D printing is a new technology that is being investigated by a number of companies. We have reported on two such examples; Kerry Stevenson produced a list of companies researching volumetric manufacturing at the beginning of 2020. Siemens currently possesses an active US patent for volumetric 3D printing that is pending in other jurisdictions. This patent uses ’emitted energy beams’ to stimulate the ‘build volume’, thus fabricating an object. The intersection of energy beams here creates an object.

Patent US10500640B2
Patent US10500640B2, which is described as follows: The system includes at least a controller operably connected to a build volume and one or more energy sources. The build volume defines a volumetric buildable size of the object to be fabricated and includes media for fabricating the object therein. The energy source(s) is configured to emit at least a first and second energy beam therefrom. The controller is configured to direct the first and second emitted energy beams towards an intersecting point in the build volume to begin fabricating the media therein. The energy from each of the first and second beams is not sufficient to fabricate the object out of the media. The object is fabricated once multiple beams intersect, as collectively, the energy of the intersecting beams is sufficient to fabricate the object.

Note that there is no obligation to obtain a patent for an invention; some individuals and companies prefer to keep their inventions industrial secrets. The risk in this approach is that another person might claim the rights to the exact same technology via a patent.

On the whole, then, claims in a patented technology in the volumetric space, as in most technical fields, become difficult to prove. The courts are the forum for such disputes. What is clear, however, is that xolo faces some competition over volumetric printing patents as it rolls out a truly revolutionary product.

 

*January 7, 2021: This post has been updated to account for Mr. White’s helpful comments below.*

Research 2021
Metal AM Market Opportunities and Trends

This market study from 3dpbm Research provides an in-depth analysis and forecast of the three core segments...

Adam Strömbergsson

Adam is a legal researcher and writer with a background in law and literature. Born in Montreal, Canada, he has spent the last decade in Ottawa, Canada, where he has worked in legislative affairs, law, and academia. Adam specializes in his pursuits, most recently in additive manufacturing. He is particularly interested in the coming international and national regulation of additive manufacturing. His past projects include a history of his alma mater, the University of Ottawa. He has also specialized in equity law and its relationship to judicial review. Adam’s current interest in additive manufacturing pairs with his knowledge of historical developments in higher education, copyright and intellectual property protections.

Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. Unfortunately there is much misinformation about the patent system in this article. The worst is that it seems that Mr. Grant does not yet have a patent at all. Following your link and then picking the U.S. case gets you to here, where you can see that the status is shown as pending.

    Importantly, patents are not “registered” they are applied for and having been applied for they may or may not be granted as enforceable patents. Also, your explanation of the PCT is very quite incorrect. Specifically – “Once registered, the patent becomes reciprocally enforceable . . . ” is wrong. The PCT process allows one physical application to act as an application to all locations that are contracting states (150+). After that each country follows its own patent laws and procedures in deciding whether or not to grant or not grant a patent. Enforcement is also local – there is no sense of reciprocity in the PCT process itself. Following your link to the WIPO page will explain this to you in more detail.

    Merely misleading is “Patents registered in the United States and in Europe are also eligible for registry with the World Intellectual Property Organization”. Filing a PCT application does not require a previous U.S. or EPO filing, although it does constitute filing in both a U.S., EPO and the 151 other places that are contracting states.

    George White registered U.S. patent attorney 62,267

  2. Also – if you follow your links regarding the Korean “patent” you will find, under legal events “2020-11-09 E601 Decision to refuse application”. They might overcome that refusal and someday be granted a patent but as of this moment it seems not to be patent, merely an application for a patent.

    1. Dear Mr. White: many thanks for your engagement with this piece, and for your comments. The article has been amended to account for the errors of fact and law that you have pointed out. Importantly, however, the article maintains that patents are recorded or, if you will, registered, with a patent jurisdiction. This phrasing reflects the social benefit of a patent rather than its status as individual property. It also reflects the location of a patent for consultation: the individual does not hold their patent out to be seen. The granting jurisdiction records or registers a patent for this purpose.

Back to top button

We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By agreeing you accept the use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.

Privacy Settings saved!
Privacy Settings

When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems.

In order to use this website we use the following technically required cookies
  • PHPSESSID
  • wordpress_test_cookie
  • wordpress_logged_in_
  • wordpress_sec

Decline all Services
Accept all Services

STAY AHEAD

OF THE CURVE

Join industry leaders and receive the latest insights on what really matters in AM!

This information will never be shared with 3rd parties

I’ve read and accept the privacy policy.*

WELCOME ON BOARD!