Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

General discussion of topics that don't seem to fit anywhere else.
revygcam
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby revygcam » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:56 pm

Great forum everybody. I'm been following a lot of your discussions. My background is in automation engineering (over 20 years) and business development (part of which has included patent and IP law).

Having read and heard a lot about the subject, I would like to put in my 2 cents about Carbon3D and CLIP. The following is my own assessment and opinion so feel free to debunk it and bash me in the head in case I'm off base.

Here it goes: I suggest that people not take Carbon3D and their CLIP technology as necessarily novel or even patentable at this point in the game.

Technically Carbon3D's "new" technology is patent pending, which means that their patent filing is currently in "application" mode, nothing granted or enforceable yet. They can put whatever they want into their claims at this point and any or all those claims could eventually be rejected as invalid by an examiner come prosecution time (likely 2+ years from now).

Furthermore, when it does go to an examiner, their entire application and process will likely be thrown out as unpatentable in my opinion. Why? a little deep digging reveals that it may not be novel. US patent # (issued 16 June 1992, and by now expired) likely describes the important parts of this invention. Curiously, this patent is missing from Carbon3D's disclosures in their applications, so they either missed it or didn't include it in the hope that the examiner (and others) would miss it.

Now it is entirely possible that I'm reading that patent wrong as it relates to Carbon3D's claims. The main point is, they do not have a patent yet and their application(s) may be thrown out or have to be severely modified to a point of extreme narrowness (and usefulness/competitive advantage), simply by the very likely chance that there are several patents just like this one, equally missed or ignored, that will in fact describe their process, rendering their claims unpatentable due to prior art.

I'm assuming that those who invested over $140M in this company recently have done their homework on the patent issue and either see this as low risk or simply don't care much about owning patents as they may believe that Carbon3D can win on marketing, PR, and execution alone going up against the big boys in the industry.

eg123
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby eg123 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:38 pm

Hi revygcam,
I see that you have experience in patent and IP law. For some reason I feel that you are the one that I should be communicating with.

I am not a scientist by any means. I am someone who uses my limited knowledge to make an efforts to solve issues that I confront. I have been doing some experimenting at my expense and time.
(It would be great If I had even a small portion of that $140 million from 3d carbon to continue doing experimenting.)
Two weeks ago I came upon a interesting finding and after many test I have been able to print something without using PDMS or any type of silicone film. I have made efforts to communicate my results to some people but what I am confronting is, no support, or they feel that it is just too good to be true.

I don't know how the 3d carbon works but for what I have experimented with my tests, it will work similar in the way that there is something to help release the cured layer.
I did a 10 minutes test print and it was sucesfull.
So far so good, and it will get better.

PM me if you would like to talk more or email me evertgnzlz@yahoo.com

User avatar
James
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:56 am
Contact:

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby James » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:00 am

Agreed.

The only way they will get a patent is if they hire an inventor that will make an invention out of what they have found. They currently have nothing to patent since every aspect of what they have disclosed can easily be found in the prior art. I've been saying this since day one of the disclosure. I didn't look at your patent you mentioned because the prior art is everywhere. Any group of people that were talking in public about oxygen layers in relation to nonstick surfaces would be a rudimentary example of this. Also, there is no novelty in doing faster what everyone was already doing slower.

I submitted a 3D printing invention to Autodesk Spark when they announced Spark and they were not interested. I was happy to learn a few months later that those making decisions there were doing so with no sense when I learned that they invested in the Carbon3D non-invention. I'll develop it myself! And when I do they are going to see what they missed out on because I'll be sure to mention to everyone how they turned me down. :lol:
I prefer to know nothing about everything rather than everything about nothing. :)

eg123
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby eg123 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:35 pm

Hi James,

Patents seem to be a complicated thing to go through and you seem to have alot of knowledge on it.
Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that you have came up with some invention that will work better than PDMS?
If you have, it is great. Being that it is new with 3d printers maybe you can partner with someone in the community to make a 3d printer.

Yes, the already established companies don't want to take time for new ideas, it will only slow them down in the daily running of the company
eventhough it may be an idea that will help them grow.

I ask because I have been experimenting with different thing to come up with something that will work more effective than PDMS.
If you have congratulations and get it to market soon so we don't have to deal with PMS, oops, I mean PDMS issues.

I don't want to continue banging my head to find a solution.

User avatar
James
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:56 am
Contact:

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby James » Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:31 pm

No, continue to develop your ideas in that area because I'm not working on that. I don't need to partner up because I am perfectly capable of doing everything alone, but I'll bet if I did have a partner I would be more serious about it rather than just working on the things I work on more for the fun of creating things. :)

Keep pressing forward with your inventions.
I prefer to know nothing about everything rather than everything about nothing. :)

eg123
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby eg123 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:17 pm

Hi James,

I feel that apart from big companies, there are many individuals like me, that are "in the basement of the science building" working towards
making their printer to work like the Carbon 3d, no PDMS. If anyone finds some kind of product or a way that works, how would you recomend
going about it?

Patents are a long process and can become expensive.
A friend of mine says that "They are worth as much money as you are willing to spend defending it"
What is your thought about that?

If some one were to come up with some innovative way for printers to work like the Carbon 3d, what would you recommend?
To go through a patent? Or bring it to market because nonstick surfaces is rudimentary?

jalessi
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:28 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby jalessi » Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:00 am

Several patent applications have already been issued, see attached link:

http://patents.justia.com/inventor/alexander-ermoshkin

Jeff...
Last edited by jalessi on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

eg123
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby eg123 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:09 pm

Thanks for the link Jeff.
Very informative.

revygcam
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby revygcam » Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:57 am


revygcam
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon3D's CLIP patentability

Postby revygcam » Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:00 am



[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable