3 ms·
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
by fluidcruft 4y ago
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.
- sitkack 4y ago> 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.
- _trampeltier 4y agoSuch robots exist since ever. Here a 12 year old youtube video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RCa8uDFzbsw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RCa8uDFzbsw
- sitkack 4y agoMy 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.
- MereInterest 4y agoOoh, 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?".