Hacker News Reader

As usual, the media doesn't read the claims, which are the legally enforceable part. To those without a background in patent law, how similar the abstract, drawings, or parts of the specifications are to prior art doesn't matter in terms of granting a patent. What matters is the claims. Let's figure out precisely what the difference is between the claims and the prior art that lead the examiner to allow the application.

You can take a look at the patent application prosecution history here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16383105/ifw/doc...

The applicant amended the independent claim to add the following:

the aerial hoist having a static position within the three-dimensional workspace whereby the aerial hoist is not translated along the x-axis with the end effector and the aerial hoist is not translated along the y-axis with the end effector

In the "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)" the examiner discusses why the prior art doesn't have this feature. I don't have time to read the notice, but this is the longest notice of allowance I can recall. The examiner seems to be going into detail about why they believe it is different.

The Hangprinter was submitted by the applicant as prior art and considered by the examiner: see "List of References cited by applicant and considered by examiner".

Note: I'm not saying the examiner was right to grant a patent here, just that critics of a granted patent should start with the claims as that's the legally enforceable part (and not the drawings or abstract). And typically the examiner's logic in allowing the application is documented, so critics should take a look at that too.

At least if the hang printer is acknowledged in this patent as prior art, but sufficiently different to justify this patent , isn't that basically tacit acknowledgement that hang printer would not be infringing on this patent?

Not a lawyer, just pondering...

I might not be interpreting this correctly; can you unpack your argument for why this wouldn't cover the HangPrinter? Is it because the motion-control base stations disposed below the aerial hoist can control linear translation of the end-effector not only in the x-y plane defined by the x-axis and the y-axis, but also in the z-axis? Do patent claims work like that?

I don't see how you could build a cable-suspended 3-D printer without including all of these elements.

> Considering all the requirements, it is quite narrow.

This is clearly not narrow. Think of the last system you designed - any system. Would you be able to fully describe it in 7 bullet points? Or would those bullet points have to be exceptionally open-ended, such that they would capture your system and many, many others?

It's not about the number of requirements. What you quoted is actually a general description of the device.

What it says is you have an effector (effector is a generic word that means something that does something) suspended in space. A rigid hoist provides a fixed position above the work area to suspend the effector. The effector hangs from the hoist by at least one cable. That cable is used to control the z postion of the effector. There are also at least two other controllers used to control the x and y position. Each controller is connected by at least one cable which is used to control position in x and y.

In fact this patent was probably granted because that clause is not specific to 3D printing. The "effector" could be something else. Like a lathe or drill or camera or lightbulb or anything that does anything.

Ooh, that's an interesting point, though I'd see it as even weaker as a result. It isn't even to the level of "What happens if I put a 3d printer pen on a Robocrane?", but stops at "What happens if I put something on a Robocrane?".

> The "effector" could be something else. Like a lathe or drill or camera or lightbulb or anything that does anything.

This is just an algebraic transformation on something specific to something generic that supplies +-energy and/or +- mass. Running a macro over someone elses idea shouldn't allow one to patent something.

Such robots exist since ever. Here a 12 year old youtube video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RCa8uDFzbsw

My comment was around mechanical transformations of ideas to make them more generic and then patenting that generic "discovery". It had nothing to do with the specifics of cable robots.

To me, this doesn't seem like a large number of claims. It seems like the minimum number of claims that appear as a result of attaching a 3d printer head to a cable-driven parallel manipulator.

> A cable-driven additive manufacturing system comprising:

So, it's a 3-d printer with something additional for it.

> an end effector configured for linear translation within a three-dimensional workspace along an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis;

Nothing new here, as this is true for any 3-d printer with a stationary bed.

> an aerial hoist suspending the end effector within the three-dimensional workspace by at least one suspension cable, the aerial hoist having a static position within the three-dimensional workspace whereby the aerial hoist is not translated along the x-axis with the end effector and the aerial hoist is not translated along the y-axis with the end effector;

The printer is suspended, and the suspension point doesn't move. So, distinct from having the printer bed move, but otherwise the obvious next step if you have the head moving in 3d.

> an aerial cable winder configured to control linear translation of the end effector along the z-axis;

Again, the obvious next step. With a fixed suspension point, pulling on the rope sets the height of the printer head.

> a plurality of motion-control base stations disposed below the aerial hoist and configured to control linear translation of the end effector in an x-y plane defined by the x-axis and the y-axis, each motion-control base station comprising a base station cable winder;

If x-y control is handled from above, then the maximum x-y speed is limited by the speed of gravity. If you attempt to move any faster, then one of the suspension cables will no longer be under tension, and the remaining ones will act as a pendulum until the maximum length of the untensioned cable is reached.

> a plurality of motion-control cables, at least one of the plurality of motion-control cables running from each of the base station cable winders to the end effector;

Well, yes. Otherwise the base stations aren't exactly base stations.

> at least one tension-control base station; and

If you are only controlling the length, then any allowed tolerance in the length spooled out will result in a larger uncertainty of the location of the print head. This is a requirement from having the x-y controls below the printer head.

> at least one tension-control cable running from the tension-control base station to the end effector.

Well, yes. Otherwise the base stations aren't exactly base stations.

So these entire claims boil down to nothing more than the shower thought of "What would happen if I put a 3d printer pen [0] on a Robocrane? [1]" Given cable-actuated parallel manipulators aren't exactly new [2], this wouldn't pass the non-obvious test to me. Heck, applying this for 3d printing is suggested in this reddit thread [3] (2016 video, March 2021 thread).

[0] https://www.amazon.com/3d-printing-pen/s?k=3d+printing+pen

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocrane

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1155/2014/823028

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/robotics/comments/mej19w/extremely_...

Don’t let logic get in the way of anger, that’s not how the internet works these days.