KickstarterForum.org

Funny how you says..it seems... is that how you think all your comments by "it seems"...as I repeatedly say any lawyer will be able to find it...

From what I read on the US Patent Office webiste Provisional Patents are available for the viewing of authorized people like patent lawyers. This is because they must have access to that information in order to do a proper patent search. A patent doesn't become public information until it has become a non-provisional patent.

I checked the website Diego provided (http://www.newpro3d.com/) and you can clearly see on the video that the printing process is really similar. Actually it looks a lot better and they don't blink the image like Nexa3D does. I'd say that you can classify that as continuous but not what nexa3d is doing.

Guys is it curious that this thread has only new users

Seriously, no problem with anybody of you!!!! Follow me on Twitter for update on my new mobile venture!

People... the game of words will not help the dishonest.. a Patent is NOT an application for a Patent... an application for a Patent DOES NOT GIVE YOU OWNERSHIP RIGHTS!!!! Having an application 7 months after some else makes it what a coincidence? OK lest say it is...still those who invest will have issue because is it NOT a patent and it will need to be granted and IT WILL NOT because we have a previous filing date as simple as that!!!!

They will say YES we have a patent... Why the hell don't you publish it!!!! and don't fool people we are complaining about what you guys call Issued Patent of October 2015...

Diego,
Carima has similar technology called C-Cat.
http://www.carima.com/ko/node/138
Claims 400x faster than current DLP.
Are they infringing on your patent also?
Nexa has a machine ready for production.
The battle over technology ownership will be fought in court and unlikely to negatively effect the end purchaser of any product with this technology. I'm backing Nexa3D's NX1

MRW wrote:Diego,
Carima has similar technology called C-Cat.
http://www.carima.com/ko/node/138
Claims 400x faster than current DLP.
Are they infringing on your patent also?
Nexa has a machine ready for production.
The battle over technology ownership will be fought in court and unlikely to negatively effect the end purchaser of any product with this technology. I'm backing Nexa3D's NX1

SIMILAR IS alike though not identical, the description of NEXA is identical to ours... having a machine for production does not in any way prove anything... as I have been repeating since day one... this is very unfair situation for us. We file for this application in April 30th 2015 and that is a fact that everyone wishes to ignore, what people want is their printer and as I see they don't care about the morality of their desires... I also know that they cant print cross sections, but this they don't tell people either, THAT IS WHY THEY PRINT THING WITH LITTLE HOLES, TELL THEM TO PRINT A SOLID OBJECT AND YOU WILL SEE. In life you reap as you sow... One of the Backer was saying it does not matter, it will take them 5 years in court anyway!!! you see, Can you understand the people we have become? Some people simply don't care... they just think I want it.... and that all there is too it. My position is clear, they lied and they will be rewarded, the said we have a patent issued on October 2015!!!! they don't have anything, I have never claimed anything like that... they don't provide the full information...they cant print solid objects.... and this technique we filed for application in April 2015

markjr wrote:Guys is it curious that this thread has only new users

Seriously, no problem with anybody of you!!!! Follow me on Twitter for update on my new mobile venture!

I am a new user simply because I don't use Kickstarter and I am defending a very clear position and people are becoming numb of hat is right and wrong... at the same time the lack and unwillingness to thinks and to get educated on a matter before writing... Taking advantage of a window of opportunity before a patent is issued is moral to many? they cant see the damage this is creating on all the families involved.... simply because they don't care, besides insulting me and calling me names which some have choose to do what moral grounds can someone have? You are new so you don't rights?

I am saying it very clearly... we have a previous application with the exact same description.
They lied saying they had a issued patent of October 2015.
They can print solid objects.

Now they are being rewarded.... funny how people are.

MRW wrote:Diego,
Carima has similar technology called C-Cat.
http://www.carima.com/ko/node/138
Claims 400x faster than current DLP.
Are they infringing on your patent also?
Nexa has a machine ready for production.
The battle over technology ownership will be fought in court and unlikely to negatively effect the end purchaser of any product with this technology. I'm backing Nexa3D's NX1

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE CHOOSE NOT TO GO PUBLIC AT FIRST, WE DID NOT WANT TO TEACH A WORLD HOW TO DO THINGS WE HAD OTHER PLANS cant you understand that? at this time a can of worms has been opened and we will have to fight for our rights...again it is NOT a matter of opinions is a matter of DATE of filling... we will go over the Japan Technology if it is the same we will proceed defending our rights as well.

Hi, an interesting topic.
In my opinion, here is the technique in this patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US4575330 well described.


As will be apparent from FIG. 4 of the drawings, there is shown on alternate configuration for a stereolithograph worin the UV curable liquid 22 or the like floats on a heavier UV transparent liquid 32 Which is non-miscible and non-wetting with the curable liquid 22. By way of Example , ethylene glycol or heavy water are suitable for the intermediate liquid layer 32. In the system of FIG. 4, the three-dimensional object 30 is pulled up from the liquid 22, rather than down and Further into the liquid medium, as shown in the system of FIG. . 3

The UV lightsource 26 in FIG. 4 Focuses the spot 27 at the interface between the liquid 22 and the non-miscible intermediate liquid layer 32, the UV radiation passing through a suitable UV transparent window 33, of quartz or the like, supported at the bottom of the container 21. The curable liquid 22 is provided in a very thin layer over the non-miscible layer 32 and thereby has the advantage of limiting layer thickness Directly, rather than relying of solely upon adsorption and the like to limit the depth of curing, since ideally on ultrathin lamina is to be provided. Hence, the region of formation will be more sharply defined and some surfaces will be FORMED smoother with the system of FIG. 4 than with That of FIG. 3. In addition, a smaller volume of UV curable liquid 22 is required, and the substitution of one curable material for another is easier.

The patent has expired and may be used.

kostja wrote:Hi, an interesting topic.
In my opinion, here is the technique in this patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US4575330 well described.


As will be apparent from FIG. 4 of the drawings, there is shown on alternate configuration for a stereolithograph worin the UV curable liquid 22 or the like floats on a heavier UV transparent liquid 32 Which is non-miscible and non-wetting with the curable liquid 22. By way of Example , ethylene glycol or heavy water are suitable for the intermediate liquid layer 32. In the system of FIG. 4, the three-dimensional object 30 is pulled up from the liquid 22, rather than down and Further into the liquid medium, as shown in the system of FIG. . 3

The UV lightsource 26 in FIG. 4 Focuses the spot 27 at the interface between the liquid 22 and the non-miscible intermediate liquid layer 32, the UV radiation passing through a suitable UV transparent window 33, of quartz or the like, supported at the bottom of the container 21. The curable liquid 22 is provided in a very thin layer over the non-miscible layer 32 and thereby has the advantage of limiting layer thickness Directly, rather than relying of solely upon adsorption and the like to limit the depth of curing, since ideally on ultrathin lamina is to be provided. Hence, the region of formation will be more sharply defined and some surfaces will be FORMED smoother with the system of FIG. 4 than with That of FIG. 3. In addition, a smaller volume of UV curable liquid 22 is required, and the substitution of one curable material for another is easier.

The patent has expired and may be used.

This is not the technique being used... the technique is using a self lubricating film!!! and the film has properties that create a DEAD ZONE... this looks similar BUT it is NOT the same, thank you anyway