Stereolithography Interface Engineering Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- 23 families total. a narrow, tightly bounded field where filing peaked in 2018 at 6 and has since gone flat rather than growing.
- B33Y overlaps B29C in 18 of 23 records. meaning most claims sit at the intersection of 3D-printing process and plastics-shaping law, not in either alone.
- The two most-cited filings both come from one family lineage. US20180361666A1 (55 citations) and its continuation US10245785B2 (34) anchor nearly all downstream citation activity.
A small, specific corpus around cure and interface control
Stereolithography interface engineering covers the physical boundary problems that decide whether a vat-photopolymerization print succeeds: bonding between cured layers, separation from the resin window, and control of the cure front as light crosses that interface. The dataset behind this page is deliberately narrow — 23 patent families matched against interlayer adhesion, resin-window interface, cured-layer bonding and interface curing control terms, restricted to the core stereolithography and additive-manufacturing IPC classes. That narrowness is itself informative: this is a claims space with defined edges, not a sprawling one.
Filing rose to a peak of 6 families in 2018, held near that level through the middle of the window, and has not shown renewed acceleration since. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any such trend will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — but a flat multi-year run through the midpoint here is a genuine signal, not just a lag artifact.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 23 families: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Flat after an early peak
Filings ran from 2 in 2017 up to a peak of 6 in 2018, held at 6 through the 2022 midpoint, and have not shown a renewed upward trend since — the field is not currently expanding.
Concentrated in B29C and B33Y
All 23 records sit in B29C (shaping of plastics) and 18 of them also carry a B33Y (additive manufacturing) code, confirming that the claim activity is squarely at the process intersection. Materials-side classes — C08K, C08L, C08F — appear only 3–5 times each, and photolithography (G03F) and coatings (C09D) codes appear just 2–3 times, marking those as adjacent rather than core.
Shares are the percentage of the 23 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Stereolithography Interface Engineering with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about stereolithography interface engineering and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited filings anchor the field
Use of Latent Metathesis Polymerization Systems for Additive Manufacturing
Latent metathesis-active resin compositions combine a latent metathesis catalyst, a curable metathesis-active monomer, and optional fillers, photosensitizers or a secondary monomer resin system for dual-cure. One method extrudes the resin and spatially triggers ring-opening metathesis polymerization by directed light or thermal stimuli for direct-ink-write printing; another applies the resin system to vat photopolymerization.Filed by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, published 2022-09-08.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180361666A1 | Methods and systems for stereolithography three-dimensional printing | 55 |
| 2 | US10245785B2 | Methods for stereolithography three-dimensional printing | 34 |
| 3 | WO2020198404A1 | Synthesis and 3D printing of photocurable colloids | 18 |
| 4 | WO2018232175A1 | Methods and systems for stereolithography three-dimensional printing | 13 |
| 5 | US20220088851A1 | Synthesis and 3D printing of photocurable colloids | 9 |
| 6 | US10935891B2 | Multi wavelength stereolithography hardware configurations | 7 |
| 7 | US20240173914A1 | High-viscosity resins in mask projection stereolithography | 4 |
| 8 | US11400650B2 | Methods and systems for stereolithography three-dimensional printing | 4 |
| 9 | US11079683B2 | Aperture system for preceramic polymer stereolithography | 4 |
| 10 | US11840586B2 | Use of latent metathesis polymerization systems for additive manufacturing | 3 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not of current commercial weight.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers say about this field
Three signals worth weighing before deciding where to file or who to watch.
Flat, not growing
Filing hit its peak of 6 families in 2018 and was still at 6 by the 2022 midpoint of the window — there is no visible acceleration through the dataset's core years. For a field this narrow, flat filing after an early peak usually means the core claim positions were staked out early and later entrants are working around them rather than expanding the space.
US-centred filing, thin elsewhere
Thirteen of the 23 records were filed at the USPTO, with Europe and WIPO each accounting for 4 and India for 2. That concentration suggests enforcement and competitive activity in this niche is presently a US story first, with PCT filings used selectively rather than as a default global strategy.
One lineage dominates citations
The two most-cited records, US20180361666A1 and its continuation US10245785B2, together draw far more citations than anything else in the set. New filers referencing stereolithography printing methods are, in practice, mostly building on or around this one lineage rather than a diverse set of foundational patents.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to stereolithography interface engineering, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| SWATHI M B | KESHAVAMURTHY R | 1 |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | MR SAMBHAJI SHIVAJI KHOT | 1 |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | MR KRISHNA PRAKASH SHELKAR | 1 |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | MR ATUL PITAMBAR PATIL | 1 |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | MR AMOL MACHHINDRA PATIL | 1 |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | DR PANKAJ PADMAKAR NERKAR | 1 |
| MR SAMBHAJI SHIVAJI KHOT | MR KRISHNA PRAKASH SHELKAR | 1 |
| MR SAMBHAJI SHIVAJI KHOT | MR ATUL PITAMBAR PATIL | 1 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole set, each linked by a single shared filing — there is no dense joint-filing cluster, just isolated pairs of individual inventors.
A fragmented field with no dominant filer
With 23 families spread thin and recent-year momentum reading zero across every named assignee, this is not a field with an active leader right now — it is one where the influential filings are aging and new activity is dispersed.
No assignee is currently active
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum — including the individual entities behind the co-filed pairs — shows zero filings in the latest year, several with a -100% year-on-year drop. That is consistent with the flat overall trend: the field's foundational work is done, and no single organisation has picked up the pace since.
Influence sits with early stereolithography printing patents
The most-cited record in the set, US20180361666A1, and its related continuation carry the bulk of citation weight. Their assignee lineage set the reference points that later filers in interlayer adhesion and cure control still cite, even without recent new filing activity from that same source.
Individual inventors, not corporate teams
Several of the co-filing pairs in this dataset are individual named inventors rather than corporate assignees, each pair sharing exactly one filing. That points to a field where small teams or independent inventors, not large R&D organisations, account for a meaningful share of the recent filing activity.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Holo, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, Inc. | 0 | — |
| HRL Laboratories, LLC | 0 | — |
| National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC | 0 | — |
| SWATHI M B | 0 | -100% |
| SOUTHWEST GREENE INTERNATIONAL INC | 0 | — |
| SOUTHWEST GREEN INT INC | 0 | — |
| MR VAIBHAV PANDURANG CHOPADE | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a narrow, stalled field with concentrated citation influence — here is how to use that.
Map the two anchor families in detail
Before filing anywhere near cure control or interlayer bonding, pull the full claim scope of US20180361666A1 and US10245785B2 — they draw the most citations by a wide margin and likely set the boundaries other filers are working around.
Explore in EurekaCheck the under-claimed sub-areas
Resin-window release chemistry and in-line cure-front sensing show thin coverage relative to the core process claims — worth a freedom-to-operate check before assuming the space is open.
Run a white space searchWatch for renewed filing, not just past peaks
Every tracked assignee shows zero recent-year filings, so a single new entrant could shift the picture quickly in a field this small.
Set a monitoring alertCommon questions on stereolithography interface engineering patents
It refers to patent claims that address the physical boundaries inside a vat photopolymerization print process — specifically interlayer adhesion between successively cured layers, the resin-window interface where the print separates from the vat film, cured-layer bonding strength, and control of the cure front as light passes through these boundaries. This dataset isolates that narrow claim territory using interlayer adhesion, resin-window interface, cured-layer bonding and interface curing control as core search terms, rather than covering stereolithography or vat photopolymerization broadly. It is a subset of the wider 3D-printing patent space, not a synonym for it.
No single assignee currently dominates: recent-year momentum tracking shows every named assignee at zero filings in the latest year, several with a full year-on-year drop. Citation influence, however, is concentrated in one lineage — US20180361666A1 and its continuation US10245785B2 together account for the majority of citations in the corpus. In practice this means the field has influential foundational patents but no actively filing leader right now.
Not currently. Filing peaked at 6 families in 2018, held at 6 through the 2022 midpoint of the tracked window, and has not shown renewed growth since — a flat pattern rather than an expanding one. Because publication typically lags actual filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years will always understate true activity, but the multi-year flat run through the midpoint is a real signal that this is a mature, narrowly bounded claim space rather than an emerging one.
The core B29C and B33Y process claims are well covered, but adjacent branches are thin: resin-window release-layer chemistry, dual-cure metathesis systems bridging direct-ink-write and vat photopolymerization, in-line cure-front sensing, and interface-specific photoinitiator packages each have only a handful of matching records. Materials-side IPC classes like C08K, C08L and C08F appear in just 3-5 records each, suggesting formulation-specific interface claims are less crowded than process-control claims. Anyone filing in these adjacent areas should still run a dedicated freedom-to-operate search, since thin representation in this specific dataset does not guarantee an open field more broadly.
The USPTO accounts for 13 of the 23 records in this dataset, making the United States the clear centre of filing activity for stereolithography interface engineering. Europe (EPO) and WIPO (PCT) each account for 4 records, and India for 2, indicating that international filing via PCT is used selectively rather than routinely. For competitive monitoring purposes, US filings are the most likely first signal of new activity in this niche.
Research Stereolithography Interface Engineering in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole stereolithography interface engineering corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.