Apple just patented a full-color 3D printer
http://makezine.com/2015/12/03/apple-3d-printer-patent/
Apparently Apple have not patented a full colour printer, they applied for this patent a couple of years ago, and are still waiting for the patent to be granted.
Their proposed technique is good - applying colour after the extruder has done its job. It would be a great pity if this patent was granted, because then there wouldn’t be any open source implementation of this technique for many, many years.
If someone knows of prior art, like a discussion of this technique a couple of years ago or longer, that would be great, because then this application could fail.
Several people have already mounted one or more markers before the extruder to apply color, even if this is from one of the companies that abuse most the broken patent system, I don’t see it as a threat to open source, only to decent businesses, but that’s what apple is all about.
@Andre_Kjellstrup I think that one feature that defines Apple’s patent application is that the paint/colour is applied after the extruder, not before. The existing implementations that apply colour before would not then count as prior art.
If you have any links to post-extruder colouring systems, they would likely be relevant to protecting the open-source community from abuse of this patent (if it is eventually granted).
No, I dont ,before is better as the pigment is in the plastic, can handle more wear, so applying after is a method that can give faster change, but will not last, but inside, or before extrusion is more permanent.
@Andre_Kjellstrup I think that it would be worse to apply some pigments, like from a sharpie marker, after the extruder, but enamel pigments applied after the extruder would very likely give an outstanding result.
Apple’s patent application does not specify how colour is applied to the plastic, just that it is applied after the extruder.
If someone (besides Apple) can figure out exactly how to apply enamel pigment after the extruder, which would look fantastic, the technique risks being encumbered by Apple’s patent.
There’s this https://reprappro.com/2015/07/09/in-development-reprappro-inkjet-head/
And very similar ideas have been talked about since 2011 ish but blogs/forums/irc chat isn’t very useful as prior art IIRC.
@Paul_Gross If its an idea easily thought of by someone in the industry then the patent fails - so if it was talked about to apply before- then its obvious that the idea will work to apply AFTER …
@JOHN_YN I think that there is no automatic failure of “obvious” ideas when patents are awarded.
For example; I have heard that some company has a current patent for fully enclosing a 3d printer for better temperature control. That’s so obvious it’s ridiculous, but if this is true, then unfortunately, obvious ideas can actually be patented.
@Liam_Jackson thanks for that.
Perhaps someone has photographs of similar machines dating more than a couple of years ago. The timestamp on those photos should serve as evidence of prior art.
It’s not getting granted as written here. Applications only get published when the examiner holds up the approval for more than a year due to concerns about the patent. It’s too broad and covers many things specifically done by Zcorp and Mcor color printers. We shouldn’t be worried about this.
More bad journalism by the 3DP media.
It fails on obviousness. The machines using UV cured jetted inks and polymers have been doing this for years.
I’ve all ways wanted one is
but you ca nstill sue and try …
@Nathan_Walkner I think you misunderstand. I am not applying for a patent, Apple is.
Prior art will prevent a patent from being granted, and @Ryan_Carlyle has already pointed put that Zcorp and Mcor may be interested in providing prior art to the US patent office to demonstrate why this patent should not be granted to Apple.
Of course, if anyone else has evidence of prior art - photographs or drawings for example - of a machine concept that adds colour to the print after the extruder head, I suppose if they email the patent office with their evidence, and the patent will sure then fail.
Prior art does not need to be in the form of a working machine, just evidence that the concept existed in the public domain before Apple filed this patent is enough.
@Nathan_Walkner You still can’t patent an idea that was “in public use” prior to the patent filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for the US patent novelty criteria. Lots of info here: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/fitf_comprehensive_training_prior_art_under_aia.pdf
The “first to file” part comes in when two people independently invent the same thing but don’t disclose it. Once the invention is disclosed in public in pretty much any verifiable way, it becomes unpatentable. (With a US-only exception that you can disclose your own invention and subsequently file a patent within 1 year of that disclosure. The EU does not have this “grace period.”)
Now, that doesn’t mean the patent examiner will find a blog post from 2011 in their prior art search. So a lot of patents get granted even though there was prior art. Thankfully, they can be invalidated later if it ever goes to a lawsuit.
In this specific case, a team in Argentina produced a printer that uses servo-driven magic markers to color each layer of the print. http://kikailabs.com.ar/knowledgebase/kikai-labs-develops-new-low-cost-method-for-coloring-fdm-objects/ This was publicly documented a month prior to Apple’s patent application, and is direct prior art to the majority of the claims in the application.
And yes, I did submit that as a 3rd-party prior art submission.
Of course the guy with the interval wiper patents won $ 300,000,000 fro auto makers.
@Nathan_Walkner
What @Ryan_Carlyle is talking about does not cost $650,000 to fight, or even a single lawyer.
A patent application can be denied simply by submitting the prior art to the examiner. The examiner merely has to decide if the submission constitutes acceptable evidence of the same concept, and that it pre-dated the application.
If the patent is granted, then it gets a whole lot harder, and will require lawyers, courts, and buckets of money, but it has already been made clear here that Apple have not yet been granted this patent.
Prior art is always relevant, especially while a patent is being considered by the examiner.
I does not cost anyone to submit prior art to the patent examiner in order to have Apple’s patent denied.