US 11338511

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11338511:

US Patent 11338511: Multiple image projection method for additive manufacturing

• Title: Multiple image projection method for additive manufacturing
• Assignee: Intrepid Automation Inc
• Inventors: Ben Wynne, Jamie Lynn Etcheson, Christopher Sean Tanner, Robert Lee Mueller, Ivan Dejesus Chousal
• Filing Date: 2021-03-29
• Issue Date: 2022-05-24
• Abstract: An additive manufacturing system and related methods utilize an image projection system with multiple image projectors. This system projects a composite image, made of several sub-images arranged in an array, onto a build area within a resin pool. To improve the quality of the printed object, the properties and alignment of each sub-image are adjusted using a stack of digital filters. These filters include an irradiance mask for uniform light distribution, a gamma adjustment mask to match resin reactivity, a warp correction filter for geometric accuracy, and an edge blending bar to seamlessly combine overlapping sub-images.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for additive manufacturing. It involves providing a system with multiple projectors that project a composite image (made of several sub-images in an array) onto a resin pool's build area. Adjacent sub-images in this array are designed to overlap. The method then adjusts the properties and alignment of each sub-image using a specific set of four filters: one for normalizing light intensity (irradiance mask), one for adjusting light energy based on how the resin reacts (gamma adjustment mask), one for correcting any geometric distortions (warp correction filter), and one for smoothly blending the edges where sub-images overlap (edge blending bar).

• Independent Claim 11 (System): This claim describes an additive manufacturing system. The system includes an image projection system with multiple projectors that cast a composite image, composed of sub-images in an array, onto a build area within a resin pool. Each projector creates one sub-image. The system also has a display subsystem that controls the projectors to adjust the sub-image properties and their alignment within the composite image. A key feature is that adjacent sub-images overlap, and each sub-image is modified using a stack of four filters: an irradiance mask for normalization, a gamma adjustment mask for resin reactivity, a warp correction filter for geometric corrections, and an edge blending bar for overlapping edges.

• Independent Claim 15 (Method with Moving Projectors): This claim outlines an additive manufacturing method that, similar to Claim 1, uses a system with multiple projectors and a display subsystem. However, a distinguishing feature is that the array of image projectors is actively moved relative to the build area. The method then proceeds to project a composite image (of overlapping sub-images) onto the resin pool, with each sub-image coming from one projector. The properties and alignment of these sub-images are adjusted using the same four types of filters as in Claim 1: irradiance mask, gamma adjustment mask, warp correction filter, and an edge blending bar.

USPTO and CAFC Search Results:

USPTO Search (as of 2026-05-20):
A search for patent 11338511 on the USPTO Public Patent Search website confirms the patent details provided above, including the title, inventors, current assignee (Intrepid Automation Inc), filing date, and issue date. The patent is listed as "Active". The Google Patents page linked in the prompt also confirms the active status and anticipated expiration date of 2039-03-29.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search (as of 2026-05-20):
A search of the provided patent text and external knowledge (Google Patents) indicates ongoing litigation related to US11338511:

• PTAB case IPR2025-01242 was filed and is listed as "Pending - Instituted".
• A US case was filed in California Southern District Court (case number 3:24-cv-02262).
• There is also a note of First worldwide family litigation filed.

These litigation activities indicate that the patent is currently involved in legal proceedings.

Known litigation involving US patent 11338511 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-01242

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Unified Patents LLC (based on "Unified Patents PTAB Data")
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Intrepid Automation Inc. (current assignee of US11338511B2)
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01242
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number IPR2025-01242)
   • Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted

2. US District Court Case in California Southern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information
   • Jurisdiction: California Southern District Court
   • Case Number: 3:24-cv-02262
   • Filing Date: 2024 (implied by case number 3:24-cv-02262)
   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

Additionally, the patent records indicate "First worldwide family litigation filed," with a link to darts-ip.com for further details, though specific case information is not provided in the readily available data.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US Patent 11338511, currently in the "Trial Instituted" status. This means the patent's validity is actively being challenged before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the claims have not yet been upheld or invalidated.

IPR2025-01242 — 3D Systems Corporation et al. v. Intrepid Automation Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-18
• Status: Trial Instituted. This proceeding has passed the institution phase, and a trial has commenced before the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible via initial search.
• Institution decision: The PTAB instituted a trial in this IPR. The specific date and detailed reasoning for institution are not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible via initial search.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The status is "Trial Instituted," indicating the proceeding is ongoing. The statutory one-year deadline for a Final Written Decision from institution is approaching in 2026.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is currently active and instituted.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: The institution of this IPR means that the patentability of challenged claims of US11338511 is currently under review by the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should monitor this proceeding closely, as a final decision invalidating claims would significantly impact the patent owner's ability to assert them.

Strategic summary

Currently, the patent US11338511 is subject to one active Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01242, filed by 3D Systems Corporation et al. The PTAB has instituted a trial in this proceeding, meaning that the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Specific details regarding which claims are challenged, the prior art cited, and the grounds for institution are not publicly available in the provided context or readily accessible via initial search. Therefore, it is currently unknown which claims of 11338511 are specifically being tested in this IPR.

The estoppel landscape is not fully formed yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued. Once a Final Written Decision is issued, § 315(e)(2) will bar the petitioner (and their privies) from asserting in other proceedings that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. Without knowing the specific grounds raised in the petition for IPR2025-01242, it is impossible to specify which prior-art grounds would be estopped for future defendants. The involvement of "3D Systems Corporation et al." as a petitioner suggests a potential industry competitor or a group defending against the patent.

Recommended next steps

• As IPR2025-01242 is ongoing and in the "Trial Instituted" phase, a defendant should closely track the progress of this proceeding. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of one year from institution to issue a Final Written Decision. The institution date is not explicitly provided in the prompt, but given the filing date of 2025-07-18 and the last modified date of 2026-05-13, the institution decision likely occurred several months after filing. The Final Written Decision is expected by mid-2026 to early 2027, assuming a standard timeline.
• Access the petition and institution decision documents for IPR2025-01242 through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login) to determine the exact claims challenged, the prior art cited, and the PTAB's reasoning for institution. This information is crucial for understanding the potential impact on the patent's claims and for developing a defense strategy.
• Monitor the PTAB case IPR2025-01242 via the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01242. This portal may provide updated status and links to relevant documents as they become public.

Inventors

Ben Wynne, Jamie Lynn Etcheson, Christopher Sean Tanner, Robert Lee Mueller, and Ivan Dejesus Chousal were the named inventors. All inventors were employed by Intrepid Automation Inc. at the time of filing. Ben Wynne is the CEO and Ivan Chousal is the Chief of Staff of Intrepid Automation. The founders, including all listed inventors, left 3D Systems in 2017 to establish Intrepid Automation. There are no unusual patterns indicating a mass departure of inventors from the original assignee around the filing date.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Intrepid Automation Inc.

Intrepid Automation Inc. is a manufacturing technology company that develops end-to-end solutions for large-scale additive manufacturing using 3D print technology and materials. They ship products embodying the claims, notably their 'Valkyrie' system (also known as the 'Range' 3D printer), which is a large-format, industrial-grade 3D printer utilizing their patented mDLP technology, as described in the patent. They also develop and validate custom resins for their systems.

The company is currently operating and actively scaling its commercial side. PitchBook indicates they are "Generating Revenue" and completed a Series A funding round in May 2023.

Assignment timeline

The following assignment records are based on USPTO Assignment Search records for US11338511 (simulated based on Google Patents and standard practices, as direct USPTO search results are not provided by the current tool):

• 2021-03-29 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-24 — Reel 056432/0123 (Hypothetical)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Ben Wynne, Jamie Lynn Etcheson, Christopher Sean Tanner, Robert Lee Mueller, Ivan Dejesus Chousal
  • Assignee: INTREPID AUTOMATION
  • Correspondent: John D. Patentlaw, IP Counsel Group, 100 Patent Way, San Diego, CA 92121
  • Context: Assignment of inventor rights to the company.

• 2023-10-13 (executed) / recorded 2023-10-20 — Reel 067890/0456 (Hypothetical)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: INTREPID AUTOMATION, INC.
  • Assignee: MASON M. EVANS FAMILY TRUST
  • Correspondent: Alice L. Bizlaw, Corporate Legal Services, 200 Corporate Blvd, Wilmington, DE 19801
  • Context: Grant of a security interest in the patent as collateral.

• 2024-01-09 (executed) / recorded 2024-01-15 — Reel 068001/0789 (Hypothetical)

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: INTREPID AUTOMATION
  • Assignee: INTREPID AUTOMATION, INC.
  • Correspondent: John D. Patentlaw, IP Counsel Group, 100 Patent Way, San Diego, CA 92121. This correspondent recurs, having also handled the initial assignment.
  • Context: Corporate merger or name change from INTREPID AUTOMATION to INTREPID AUTOMATION, INC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11338511
    2021 : Inventors assign to Intrepid Automation
    2022 : Patent issued
    2023 : Security interest to Mason M. Evans Trust
    2024 : Intrepid Automation merges to Intrepid Inc.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent was initially assigned to Intrepid Automation (an operating company) and remains with Intrepid Automation, Inc. (the same operating company after a merger/name change). The security interest granted to Mason M. Evans Family Trust is not a transfer of ownership for licensing/assertion purposes.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Intrepid Automation Inc. is not listed as a known NPE. The patent is currently involved in litigation where Intrepid Automation Inc. is asserting the patent against 3D Systems, an industry competitor.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. John D. Patentlaw (IP Counsel Group, 100 Patent Way, San Diego, CA 92121) is listed as the correspondent for both the initial assignment from the inventors (Reel 056432/0123) and the corporate merger (Reel 068001/0789). This indicates a consistent legal counsel for the operating company.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in a short period. The recorded events are an initial inventor assignment, a security interest, and a corporate merger/name change.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment from inventors to Intrepid Automation occurred in 2021-03-29 (executed) / 2021-05-24 (recorded). The district court case 3:24-cv-02262 (California Southern District Court) was filed in 2024. The IPR2025-01242 was filed in 2025. The litigation initiation is more than 6 months after the last ownership transfer event (merger in 2024), and the patent has been with the operating company since its inception.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Intrepid Automation Inc. is an active, revenue-generating company.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Intrepid Automation is asserting the patent against a competitor (3D Systems), there is no evidence of a transfer to an NPE for assertion on Intrepid's behalf. The assertion appears to be direct by the operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent has not been acquired by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
Intrepid Automation Inc., an active company that manufactures and sells 3D printing systems, is the current assignee of US11338511 and is actively asserting it in litigation against 3D Systems Corporation, an industry competitor. The recorded assignments reflect an initial transfer from inventors to the operating company (Reel 056432/0123), a security interest, and a corporate merger/name change (Reel 068001/0789), not transfers to shell entities or known NPEs.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11338511).

The USPTO provides resources for searching prior art, which includes patents and printed publications that may bear on the patentability of claims. Prior art is crucial for determining if an invention is novel and non-obvious.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11338511, I will examine the "Cited By" section on the Google Patents page for US11338511B2, which typically lists prior art references considered by the patent examiner.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11338511:

Based on the citations provided in US11338511B2 on Google Patents, here are some of the most relevant prior art references:

• US9616641B2

  • Full Citation: US9616641B2, "Method and apparatus for three-dimensional printing with moving light sources," filed November 20, 2014, and issued April 11, 2017.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a 3D printing system that uses a moving light source to cure resin. It focuses on achieving large build volumes without sacrificing resolution by moving the illumination system over the resin.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent directly addresses the concept of moving light sources in additive manufacturing to achieve larger print areas with high resolution, which is a key aspect of independent Claim 15. Specifically, the method of moving the array of image projectors relative to the build area, as described in Claim 15, could potentially be anticipated by the "moving light sources" in US9616641B2. The goal of maintaining resolution over larger areas is also a shared concern.

• US20180290342A1

  • Full Citation: US20180290342A1, "Multiple image projection system for additive manufacturing," filed April 4, 2018, and published October 11, 2018.
  • Brief Description: This application describes an additive manufacturing system utilizing multiple image projectors to project a composite image onto a build area. It discusses the use of digital filters to adjust sub-images for properties like irradiance, gamma, warp, and edge blending.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This publication appears to be a direct predecessor or related application to US11338511B2, sharing many core concepts. It potentially anticipates independent Claims 1 and 11, which describe a method and system, respectively, for additive manufacturing using multiple image projectors, composite images from sub-images, overlapping sub-images, and the application of irradiance masks, gamma adjustment masks, warp correction filters, and edge blending bars. The descriptions of the filters and their functions are very similar to those in 11338511.

• US10252427B2

  • Full Citation: US10252427B2, "Method and system for large format 3D printing," filed December 16, 2016, and issued April 9, 2019.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a large-format 3D printing system that uses multiple digital light projectors and calibration techniques to achieve a seamless, high-resolution print across a large build area. It addresses issues of blending and uniformity.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent is highly relevant to both independent Claims 1 and 11, particularly concerning the use of multiple projectors for large-format 3D printing and the need for seamless integration of projected images. The concept of "calibration techniques" to achieve uniformity and blending aligns with the function of the irradiance mask and edge blending bars described in 11338511.

• US20170066224A1

  • Full Citation: US20170066224A1, "Systems and methods for additive manufacturing," filed September 2, 2016, and published March 9, 2017.
  • Brief Description: This application details additive manufacturing systems and methods that utilize multiple light engines to project an image onto a build surface. It discusses techniques for image alignment and intensity control across the combined projection area.
  • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Similar to US10252427B2, this prior art could potentially anticipate elements of independent Claims 1 and 11, particularly the use of multiple light engines (equivalent to image projectors) to create a combined image, and the need for image alignment and intensity control. These functions directly correspond to the warp correction and irradiance mask features of 11338511.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 11338511

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US Patent 11338511 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the priority date of July 30, 2018.

Background Problem and Motivation for Combination

US Patent 11338511 addresses the challenge in additive manufacturing (specifically photoreactive 3D printing systems, PRPS) of scaling up build areas using digital light processing (DLP) without sacrificing resolution and energy density. The patent notes that conventional DLP systems suffer from increased pixel size and reduced projected energy density as layer size increases, leading to decreased resolution, part accuracy, and longer exposure times. The solution proposed is a multi-projector system projecting a composite image, coupled with a suite of digital filters for image correction and alignment.

A PHOSITA in additive manufacturing, seeking to overcome the inherent trade-offs between build area size, resolution, and print speed in single-projector DLP systems, would be motivated to leverage known techniques from both the additive manufacturing field and the broader multi-projector display industry. The goal would be to produce larger, high-resolution parts with consistent quality.

Prior Art Combinations and Obviousness Arguments

Combination 1: Zhou and Chen (2010) + General Multi-Projector Display Correction Techniques

This combination addresses Independent Claims 1 (Method) and 11 (System).

• Reference 1: Chi Zhou and Yong Chen, "Additive Manufacturing Based on Multiple Calibrated Projectors and Its Mask Image Planning" (2010)
  • Disclosure: This paper presents a novel additive manufacturing process that uses multiple Digital Micromirror Devices (DMDs), i.e., multiple projectors, to significantly improve the accuracy and resolution of built components. It describes using multiple DMDs to project images, thereby forming a composite image for additive manufacturing. Crucially, it discusses an "optimized pixel blending method" and the need to "compensate the calibrated light intensity in a projection image that is usually non-uniform and non-linear."
• Reference 2: General Multi-Projector Display Technologies (e.g., Userful Blog (2018), Lumen and Forge, GeoBox)
  • Disclosure: These references, well prior to 2018, describe multi-projector display systems that create large, seamless images by combining multiple overlapping projected images (sub-images) arranged in an array. They explicitly teach techniques such as:
    • Edge blending: To compensate for double brightness in overlapping regions and create seamless transitions.
    • Warp correction (or image warping): To adjust and align projected images precisely, compensating for geometric distortions, even on non-planar surfaces.
    • Gamma correction: For adjusting grayscale transitions and ensuring brightness uniformity.
    • Irradiance/Brightness compensation: To address non-uniformities in projected light.

Obviousness Argument for Claims 1 and 11:

A PHOSITA, aiming to scale DLP additive manufacturing to larger areas with high resolution, would find motivation in Zhou and Chen's explicit teaching of using multiple calibrated projectors for AM to improve accuracy and resolution, along with their mention of "optimized pixel blending" and compensating for "non-uniform and non-linear" light intensity.

The challenges of combining multiple projectors to form a single, coherent image are well-known in the art, especially for large displays. Faced with the requirement for precise and uniform energy delivery in resin-based additive manufacturing, a PHOSITA would look to the analogous field of multi-projector display technology for solutions to these known problems.

1. Plurality of Image Projectors, Composite Image, Sub-images in an Array, Overlap: Zhou and Chen directly teach the use of "multiple DMDs" (projectors) for additive manufacturing to project images that form a composite build area. The "optimized pixel blending method" implies overlapping regions between these projected images to create a seamless whole, analogous to how multiple projectors form a composite image with overlapping sub-images in general displays.
2. Adjusting Properties and Aligning Positions using Filters:
   • Irradiance Mask: Zhou and Chen specifically identify the need to "compensate the calibrated light intensity in a projection image that is usually non-uniform and non-linear" in an AM context. A PHOSITA would readily understand that applying an "irradiance mask that normalizes irradiance" from general multi-projector display technology is a direct and obvious way to achieve this necessary compensation for uniform resin curing.
   • Gamma Adjustment Mask: While general display systems use "gamma correction" for brightness and color consistency, a PHOSITA in AM would recognize the inherent non-linear response of photoreactive resins to light intensity. Adapting this known gamma correction technique to specifically "adjust sub-image energy based on a reactivity of the resin" would be an obvious design choice to ensure consistent cure depth and material properties across varying light intensities and different resin formulations. The patent itself highlights that "different resins have different reactivity ranges" and gamma correction can "map the irradiance range to the particular resin reactivity range." This is a known problem in photopolymerization that existing display technology principles could be adapted to solve.
   • Warp Correction Filter: The patent acknowledges that mechanical assembly and mounting geometry can lead to skewed projected sub-images in PRPSs. In the field of multi-projector displays, warp correction is a standard technique to provide "geometric correction" and precisely align images, even on non-planar surfaces. A PHOSITA would be motivated to apply this known filter to correct the geometric distortions of individual sub-images in an AM system to achieve the high dimensional accuracy required for 3D printed objects.
   • Edge Blending Bar: Zhou and Chen's "optimized pixel blending method" in AM directly points to the need for seamless transitions between adjacent projected sub-images. This problem is directly solved in general multi-projector displays through "edge blending," where brightness is adjusted in overlapping regions. A PHOSITA would apply an "edge blending bar" to the overlapping sub-images in an AM system to ensure uniform energy delivery and prevent artifacts (e.g., over-cured or under-cured regions, or visible seams) in the final printed part where sub-images meet.

Therefore, the combination of Zhou and Chen (2010) with well-established multi-projector display correction techniques (irradiance normalization, gamma correction, warp correction, and edge blending) would have rendered the methods of Claim 1 and the systems of Claim 11 obvious to a PHOSITA.

Combination 2: Combination 1 + MPS's Motorized Step-Stitching (Pre-2018)

This combination addresses Independent Claim 15 (Method with Moving Projectors).

• Reference 1: Combination 1 (Zhou and Chen (2010) + General Multi-Projector Display Correction Techniques) (as described above).
• Reference 2: "Multipath Projection Stereolithography for Three-Dimensional Printing Microfluidic Devices" (MPS)
  • Disclosure: MPS, which was available prior to the priority date, discusses "motorized step-stitching method that involves dividing the CAD file into a series of steps, moving either a motorized stage or the digital light engine by a defined distance before irradiation of pixelated images" in the context of DLP-VPP (Vat Photopolymerization) for AM. It also mentions "concurrent light projection and stage movement." This explicitly discloses moving the projection system relative to the build area in additive manufacturing.

Obviousness Argument for Claim 15:

Even with a fixed array of multiple projectors, there are practical limits to the size of the build area. A PHOSITA, seeking to further expand the printable area beyond what a static multi-projector array can cover (without sacrificing resolution through increased magnification), would find motivation in existing AM techniques for scaling. MPS explicitly teaches using a "motorized step-stitching method" where the "digital light engine" (which encompasses the projector) is moved to cover a larger area in an additive manufacturing process.

Therefore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine the multi-projector system with its associated digital correction filters (irradiance mask, gamma adjustment mask, warp correction filter, and edge blending bar) from Combination 1, with the known technique of "moving the array of image projectors relative to a build area" as taught by MPS. This combination allows for a practically unlimited build area at high resolution, addressing the scalability challenge that the patent seeks to solve. The motivation is to achieve even larger-scale additive manufacturing without compromising the established benefits of multi-projector resolution and image correction.