This invention relates to calibration for additive manufacturing.
Vision feedback for jetted additive fabrication has been shown to provide highly accurate fabrication of objects in view of systematic and random variations in the fabrication process. Such approaches are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,252,466 and 10,456,984. Accuracy of such systems relies on accurate calibration of various system components, including printheads, a vision system, and the motion system that controls the relative motion of the object being fabricated and the printheads.
In a general aspect, a jetted additive fabrication system may improve accuracy by calibrating the system after forming (i.e., printing) a fabrication platform prior to forming the object to be fabricated. This fabrication platform may have desirable structure, for example, being formed with an orientation such that a distance between a surface of an object being fabricated remains substantially constant, for example, during the relative motion of the object and the printheads, as well as between the object and the sensing system. Having formed such a fabrication platform, calibration (or updating of an existing calibration) of the system based on this platform may provide higher accuracy and/or repeatability than is obtained using prior vision feedback based additive fabrication.
In one aspect, in general, a method for calibration of an additive fabrication system a fabricating a fabrication platform (234) on a first build plate (220). The system is calibrated by determining geometric relationships between a printhead (112), a sensing system (118), and a motion system for controllably moving the first build plate. An object (250) is then fabricated on the fabricated platform (234) positioned on the fabricated platform according to the determined first geometric relationships.
Aspects may include one or more of the following features.
The motion system includes at least a first motion direction ({right arrow over (m)}x), and fabricating the fabrication platform includes fabricating said platform to be parallel to the first motion direction.
The motion system includes at least a second motion direction ({right arrow over (m)}y) substantially perpendicular to the first motion direction and fabricating the fabrication platform includes fabricating said platform to be parallel to the second motion direction.
The fabricating of the object comprises depositing successive layers of material, and wherein said depositing a layer comprises continuously moving the object relative to the printhead along the first motion direction causing the distance between the printhead and a surface of the object to remain substantially constant.
The depositing of the layer includes moving the object in the second motion direction.
The calibrating of the additive fabrication system includes fabricating markers (236, 237) on the fabrication platform (234), and wherein determining the first geometric relationships includes sensing said markers using the sensing system.
The printhead comprises a printhead assembly (1012-1) having a plurality of printheads (1013-1A to 1013-1D), and wherein the calibrating of the additive fabrication system includes fabricating a plurality of markers (1040-1A to 1040-1D) with the printheads.
The calibrating of the additive fabrication system further includes determining relative locations of the markers from a scan of the fabricated platform after the fabricating of the markers.
The method further comprises, prior to the fabricating of the fabrication platform, determining second geometric relationships between the motion system and a second build plate.
The determining of the second geometric relationship comprises scanning markers formed in the second build plate.
The second build plate is a separate build plate, and the second build plate is removed from the fabrication system and the first build plate is installed in the fabrication system prior to fabrication of the fabrication platform on the first build plate.
The fabricating of the fabrication platform comprises fabricating said platform using a support material.
The forming of the fabrication platform includes forming said platform in contact an edge element (336A-E) for bonding the fabrication platform to the first build plate.
The method further comprises fabricating the edge elements on the first build plate.
In another aspect, in general, an additive fabrication system is configured to perform all the steps of any of the methods set forth above.
In another aspect, in general, software stored on a machine-readable medium, when executed by a processor causes all the steps of any of the methods set forth above to be performed by the processor and/or by an additive fabrication system under control of the processor.
Other features and advantages of the invention are apparent from the following description, and from the claims.
An embodiment described below relates to a vision-feedback jetted additive fabrication, for example, as described in co-pending application Ser. No. 17/197,581, filed 10 Mar. 2021, which is incorporated herein by reference. As described in that application, a set of fixed printheads, for example, one printhead used for a different material, and each printhead having a linear array of jets, is used to eject material toward a moving build plate, whose motion is controllable in three dimensions. Successive layers of material are deposited during motion of the build platform in a first direction ({right arrow over (m)}x), in general with multiple passes being made for each layer in order to build objects wider than the jet arrays of the printheads by offsetting the build platform in a second direction ({right arrow over (m)}y), which is substantially but not necessarily exactly, perpendicular to the first direction. In the embodiment described in the co-pending application, as layers are added to a partially fabricated object the build platform is lowered in a third direction ({right arrow over (m)}z), which is substantially but not necessarily exactly perpendicular to the plane defined by the first and second directions. Although such lowering may not be required in all embodiments, there are advantages to maintaining a small range of variation of the distance between the printheads and the surface on which layers are deposited, for example, to keep the distance as small as possible without causing physical interference between the printheads and the object. The small distance may for example, limit undesirable effects such as variations in the flight path of drops caused by air currents, or variations in the shapes of drops caused by fluid dynamics effects (e.g., caused by flow of air over the ink drops, surface tension, etc.).
This embodiment also makes use of vision-based feedback, for example, as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,252,466 and 10,456,984, which are incorporated herein by reference. Generally, an optical sensor is used to measure the surface geometry, and optionally material identity or properties, and these measurements are used in a feedback arrangement to control the emission of material from the jets, for example, determining which and how much material to emit as the build platform moves under the printheads. As introduced above, there may be good reasons for maintaining a consistent distance between the printheads and the surface being printed on (i.e., by lowering the build platform as layers are added to the object being fabricated) for the sake of accurate depositing of material. Furthermore, maintaining the surface within a small range of distance from the surface sensor (e.g., a laser profilometer), greater accuracy and/or consistency may be achieved as compared to the surface sensor having to accommodate a wider range of distance.
Calibration of the relative locations and orientations of various components of the printing system are important to achieving high-precision fabrications. Some approaches to such calibration are described in U.S. Pat. No. 10,994,490, titled “Calibration for Additive Manufacturing,” issued 4 May 2021, which is incorporated herein by reference. Generally, the embodiments described below extend the calibration approaches in the above-referenced patent and/or adapt to imperfect alignment of components of the system.
Referring to
In this embodiment, build plates are removable, for example, permitting sequential printing of objects by removing a build plate on which a completed object has been fabricated, and installing a new empty build plate for the next object. Similarly, the calibration build plate 120 may be installed in the same manner. The installation of a build plate is somewhat repeatable, but not necessarily with the precision needed for fabrication.
When installed in the printer, the build plate is movable in three dimensions with three directional drive mechanisms. These directions are denoted {right arrow over (m)}x (a vector in a universal frame of reference of the printer) for the primary direction of (continuous) motion while the material is jetted on the object, and {right arrow over (m)}y for a direction approximately perpendicular to {right arrow over (m)}x for offsetting the object between passes for a single layer. Ideally, the top surface of the build plate is parallel to the {right arrow over (m)}x×{right arrow over (m)}y plane, but in practice this is not the case, and the “tilt” of the build plate is significant enough to affect printing accuracy. Finally, the build plate is movable in a substantially vertical direction {right arrow over (m)}z, which is approximately but not necessarily exactly perpendicular to the {right arrow over (m)}x×{right arrow over (m)}y plane. The frame of reference for the motion system is denoted by calibration values m=({right arrow over (m)}x, {right arrow over (m)}y, {right arrow over (m)}z).
A sensing system 118 (also referred to below as a “scanner” without any connotation that there is any particular form of traversal of the object being sensed) is used to determine the location of the surface of an object (e.g., a build plate or a partially fabricated object). In this embodiment, the scanner 118 includes a laser emitter 114, which produces a light plane 115 (shown in cross-section as a line 115 in
In a first calibration stage illustrated in
At the end of the first stage of calibration, a relationship of three quantities is known, allowing determination of any one of the other two. These quantities (when a fiducial point is illuminated by the scanner) are:
Referring to
As a result of this second stage of calibration, the printhead 112 is calibrated relative to the scanner 118, which provides a basis for accurate vision-based feedback for fabricating an object on the build platform. For example, the relationship between
In the fabrication process described for this embodiment, the second stage of calibration is not required. Furthermore, the calibration build plate 120 is removed, and an empty fabrication build plate 220 is installed (for brevity, this fabrication build plate is referred to as “the build plate” below). Note that ideally, this build plate 220 would have the exact location and orientation on the motion system as the calibration build plate 120, but in general it may have a reference frame {tilde over (b)} (e.g., an orientation) that differs slightly from the calibration plate.
One aspect of the orientation is that the top surface of the build plate, even if perfectly planar, is not necessarily parallel to the {right arrow over (m)}x×{right arrow over (m)}y plane (the “motion plane”) of the motion system. This means that if an object were to be fabricated on the build platform in the {tilde over (b)} reference frame, as the object passes under the printhead 112, and as it passes under the scanner 118, its distances to these elements changes. Calibration performed in the first and second stages described above can in principle be used to adjust the controlled emission of material to build the object “at an angle.”
Preferably, as illustrated in
One advantage of this parallel structure is that the separation between the printhead and the surface being printed on may be minimized without having to accommodate the highest point of the surface during a printing pass. Furthermore, by having a relatively constant distance, the height-based compensation determined during calibration (i.e., the {right arrow over (p)}1 parameter value) is relatively less important.
An advantage of a relatively constant separation of the surface and the scanner is that a much smaller height range must be imaged, which in turn permits using a greater pixel resolution for that range and may exploit the optical elements in a narrower angular range yielding fewer optical distortions introducing non-linear imaging effects.
Note that forming of the raft 234 for the support material (e.g., a wax) does not necessarily require accurate calibration of the printhead. For example, upon the depositing of a first layer of the raft, the scanner can provide height variation data to a controller, which then instructs the printheads to vary the regions on which to deposit subsequent layers, ultimately reaching the parallel top surface that is desired. That is, only a gross calibration is required such that the material emission does not miss the build platform and that the raft makes use of a useful area of the build platform.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
After scanning of the fiducial markers 236, 237, an incremental raft 238 may be formed to again yield a parallel surface on which to build the object. In some embodiments, this step is not needed, for example, to the extent that the fiducial markers are not formed throughout the surface leaving a usable surface on which to fabricate the object on the original raft 234.
Referring to
Note that this sort of repeated calibration for each build plate can have yet other advantages than those introduced above. For example, a slight disturbance of the relative location of the printheads and the scanner can be accommodated. Such a disturbance may result from mechanical jarring of the printer, or cleaning of the printheads. The re-calibration may also address aspects such as deviation of the amount of material deposited from each printhead, for example, resulting from partial clogging of printheads and/or changes in fluid properties (e.g., viscosity) of the jetted materials.
In some embodiments (not illustrated), it is possible to deposit fiducial markers part-way through the fabrication process, for example, near the periphery of the support material 244 of the object to adjust the calibration in case there was a mechanical change during the fabrication of a single object.
Referring to
In an example that makes certain simplifying assumptions, the printheads are assumed to be precisely aligned in the “y” direction, which is the direction perpendicular to the direction of relative motion (denoted {right arrow over (m)}x in
Continuing to refer to
Referring to
Based on the scanning of the printed markers, the relative positions, such as illustrated displacements δ(1A→1B) and δ(1A→1C), are computed from the scan, for example, using an image correlation approach to best align the printed patterns. Note that the selection of the pattern to be printed may be made to make such alignment as accurate as possible. Having determined the relative positions between the printhead assemblies in the motion direction ({right arrow over (m)}x) printing to achieve placement of material at desired locations long the motion direction is achieved. Note that this process is performed twice, with the markers being printed in both print directions, and this calibration along the motion direction being determined, recorded, and used separately for the two printing directions.
Calibration along the perpendicular direction uses a similar approach, with the added features that the offsets in this perpendicular direction are quantized to be an integer number of jet spacings. In this way, the jets of each printhead assembly are calibrated to map to a uniform spacing (e.g., every 60 microns) on the print surface and complexity involved with fractional alignment is ignored without any significant affect on print quality.
Returning to optional alignment of the printheads relative to (i.e., perpendicular to) the direction of motion, one approach makes use of printing of fiducial markers as shown in
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Embodiments described above may make use of a hardware controller coupled to the printhead, sensing system (e.g., scanner), and motion system. The controller during operation causes steps described above to be performed. For example, the controller is a general-purpose computer that executes software applications. The controller may executed software instructions that are stored on a computer-readable medium, such that when the software instructions are executed, the steps described above are performed and/or caused to be performed. In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of a controller, circuitry (e.g., ASICs, FPGAs, and the like) are used to implement steps of the method.
Several embodiments of the invention have been described. Nevertheless, it is to be understood that the foregoing description is intended to illustrate and not to limit the scope of the invention, which is defined by the scope of the following claims. Accordingly, other embodiments are also within the scope of the following claims. For example, various modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. Additionally, some of the steps described above may be order independent, and thus can be performed in an order different from that described.
This application is a Continuation-in-Part of International Application PCT/US21/30647, filed 4 May 2021, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5460758 | Langer et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
6492651 | Kerekes | Dec 2002 | B2 |
8237788 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
9259931 | Moreau et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9562759 | Vogler et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9697604 | Wang et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9952506 | Arai et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
10011071 | Batchelder | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10252466 | Ramos et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10456984 | Matusik et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10725446 | Mercelis | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10926473 | Matusik et al. | Feb 2021 | B1 |
10994490 | Matusik et al. | May 2021 | B1 |
20020104973 | Kerekes | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20040085416 | Kent | May 2004 | A1 |
20040114002 | Kosugi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040173946 | Pfeifer et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20060007254 | Tanno et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20070106172 | Abreu | May 2007 | A1 |
20070241482 | Giller et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080124475 | Kritchman | May 2008 | A1 |
20090073407 | Okita | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090105605 | Abreu | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090220895 | Garza et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090279089 | Wang | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090279098 | Ohbayashi et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100140550 | Keller et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100158332 | Rico et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20120275148 | Yeh et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130182260 | Bonnema et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130328227 | McKinnon et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140249663 | Voillaume | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140300676 | Miller et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140328963 | Mark et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150061178 | Siniscalchi et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150101134 | Manz et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150124019 | Cruz-Uribe et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150140295 | Okamoto | May 2015 | A1 |
20150352792 | Kanada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160018404 | Iyer et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160023403 | Ramos | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160101568 | Mizes et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160157751 | Mahfouz | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160167301 | Cole et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160185044 | Leonard et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160209319 | Adalsteinsson et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160249836 | Gulati et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160320771 | Huang | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160347005 | Miller | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170021455 | Dallarosa et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170050374 | Minardi et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170078524 | Tajima et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170087766 | Chung et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170106604 | Dikovsky et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170120337 | Kanko et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170125165 | Prest | May 2017 | A1 |
20170132355 | Vasquez et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170143494 | Mahfouz | May 2017 | A1 |
20170217103 | Babaei et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170235293 | Shapiro et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170355147 | Buller et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170372480 | Anand et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180017501 | Trenholm et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180036964 | DehghanNiri et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180056288 | Abate et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180056582 | Matusik et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180071984 | Lee et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180095450 | Lappas et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180099333 | DehghanNiri et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180143147 | Milner et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180154580 | Mark | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180169953 | Matusik et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180194066 | Ramos et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180273657 | Wang et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180275636 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180281067 | Small et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180297113 | Preston et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180304540 | Tobia et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180304549 | Safai et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180311893 | Choi et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180320006 | Lee et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180341248 | Mehr et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180348492 | Pavlov et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20180361668 | Kim et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190056717 | Kothari et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190077921 | Eckel | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190118300 | Penny et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190230248 | Mizes et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190270254 | Mark et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190271966 | Coffman et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190283329 | Lensgraf et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190322031 | Kritchman | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190329322 | Preston et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190346830 | de Souza Borges Ferreira et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190353767 | Eberspach et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190389123 | Parker et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20200004225 | Buller et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200122388 | Van Esbroeck et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200143006 | Matusik et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200147888 | Ramos et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200215761 | Chen et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200223143 | Gurdiel Gonzalez et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200247063 | Pinskiy et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200353684 | Dudley et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200399411 | Shpayzer et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
20210362225 | Yun | Nov 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2186625 | Dec 2016 | EP |
3459716 | Mar 2019 | EP |
3527352 | Aug 2019 | EP |
2014098555 | May 2014 | JP |
6220476 | Oct 2017 | JP |
2018103488 | Jul 2018 | JP |
101567281 | Nov 2015 | KR |
20180067961 | Jun 2018 | KR |
9845141 | Oct 1998 | WO |
2003026876 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO-2015174867 | Nov 2015 | WO |
2017066077 | Apr 2017 | WO |
2018080397 | May 2018 | WO |
2018197376 | Nov 2018 | WO |
2018209438 | Nov 2018 | WO |
2018217903 | Nov 2018 | WO |
2019070644 | Apr 2019 | WO |
2019125970 | Jun 2019 | WO |
2020123479 | Jun 2020 | WO |
2020146490 | Jul 2020 | WO |
2020145982 | Jul 2020 | WO |
WO-2020231962 | Nov 2020 | WO |
2020264314 | Dec 2020 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Alarousu, Erkki, Ahmed AlSaggaf, and Ghassan E. Jabbour. “Online monitoring of printed electronics by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.” Scientific reports 3 (2013): 1562. |
Blanken, Lennart, Robin de Rozario, Jurgen van Zundert, Sjirk Koekebakker, Maarten Steinbuch, and Tom Oomen. “Advanced feedforward and learning control for mechatronic systems.” In Proc. 3rd DSPE Conf. Prec. Mech, pp. 79-86. 2016. |
Blanken, Lennart “Learning and repetitive control for complex systems: with application to large format printers.” (2019). |
Daniel Markl et al: “Automated pharmaceutical tablet coating layer evaluation of optical coherence tomography images”, Measurement Science and Technology, IOP, Bristol, GB, vol. 26, No. 3, Feb. 2, 2015 (Feb 2, 2015), p. 35701, XP020281675, ISSN: 0957-0233, DOI: 10.1088/0957-0233/26/3/035701 [retrieved on Feb. 2, 2015]. |
Daniel Markl et al: “In-line quality control of moving objects by means of spectral-domain OCT”, Optics and Lasers in Engineering, vol. 59, Aug. 1, 2014 (Aug. 1, 2014), pp. 1-10, XP055671920, Amsterdam, NL ISSN: 0143-8166, DOI: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2014.02.008. |
DebRoy, T.; Wei, H.L.; Zuback, J.S.; Muhkerjee, T.; Elmer, J.W.; Milewski, J.O.; Beese, A.M.; Wilson-Heid, A.; Ded, A.; and Zhang, W., “Additive manufacturing of metallic components—Process, structure and properties”, Jul. 3, 2017, Progress in Materials Science 92 (2018) 112-224. (Year: 2017). |
Fischer, Björn, Christian Wolf, and Thomas Härtling. “Large field optical tomography system.” In Smart Sensor Phenomena, Technology, Networks, and Systems Integration 2013, vol. 8693, p. 86930P. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013. |
Huo, Tiancheng, Chengming Wang, Xiao Zhang, Tianyuan Chen, Wenchao Liao, Wenxin Zhang, Shengnan Ai, Jui-Cheng Hsieh, and Ping Xue. “Ultrahigh-speed optical coherence tomography utilizing all-optical 40 MHz swept-source.” Journal of biomedical optics 20, No. 3 (2015): 030503. |
Klein, Thomas, and Robert Huber. “High-speed OCT light sources and systems.” Biomedical optics express 8, No. 2 (2017): 828-859. |
Kulik, Eduard A., and Patrick Calahan. “Laser profilometry of polymeric materials.” Cells and Materials 7, No. 2 (1997): 3. |
Moon, Sucbei, and Dug Young Kim. “Ultra-high-speed optical coherence tomography with a stretched pulse supercontinuum source.” Optics Express 14, No. 24 (2006): 11575-11584. |
Park, Yongwoo, Tae-Jung Ahn, Jean-Claude Kieffer, and José Azaña. “Optical frequency domain reflectometry based on real-time Fourier transformation.” Optics express 15, No. 8 (2007): 4597-4616. |
Qi, X.; Chen, G.; Li, Y.; Cheng, X.; and Li, C., “Applying Neural-Network Based Machine Learning to Addirive Manufacturing: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives”, Jul. 29, 2018, Engineering 5 (2019) 721-729. (Year: 2019). |
Sitthi-Amorn, Pitchaya, Javier E. Ramos, Yuwang Wangy, Joyce Kwan, Justin Lan, Wenshou Wang, and Wojciech Matusik. “MultiFab: a machine vision assisted platform for multi-material 3D printing.” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 34, No. 4 (2015): 129. |
Wieser, Wolfgang, Benjamin R. Biedermann, Thomas Klein, Christoph M. Eigenwillig, and Robert Huber. “Multi-megahertz OCT: High quality 3D imaging at 20 million A-scans and 4.5 GVoxels per second.” Optics express 18, No. 14 (2010): 14685-14704. |
Xu, Jingjiang, Xiaoming Wei, Luoqin Yu, Chi Zhang, Jianbing Xu, K. K. Y. Wong, and Kevin K. Tsia. “Performance of megahertz amplified optical time-stretch optical coherence tomography (AOT-OCT).” Optics express 22, No. 19 (2014): 22498-22512. |
Zhou, Chao, Aneesh Alex, Janarthanan Rasakanthan, and Yutao Ma. “Space-division multiplexing optical coherence tomography.” Optics express 21, No. 16 (2013): 19219-19227. |
Yu C, Jiang J. A Perspective on Using Machine Learning in 3D Bioprinting. Int J Bioprint. Jan. 24, 2020;6(1):253. doi: 10.18063/ijb.v6i1.253. |
Goh, G.D., Sing, S.L. & Yeong, W.Y. A review on machine learning in 3D printing: applications, potential, and challenges. Artif Intell Rev 54, 63-94 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-020-09876-9. |
Optimal shape morphing control of 4D printed shape memory polymer based on reinforcement learning Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing (IF5.666), Pub Date : Jul. 17, 2021, DOI: 10.1016/j.rcim.2021.102209. |
Zhao, Xiaozhou, Julia A. Bennell, Tolga Bekta?, and Kath Dowsland. “A comparative review of 3D container loading algorithms.” International Transactions in Operational Research 23, No. 1-2 (2016): 287-320. |
Daniel Markl et al: “Automated pharmaceutical tablet coating layer evaluation of optical coherence tomography images”, Measurement Science and Technology, IOP, Bristol, GB, vol. 26, No. 3, Feb. 2, 2015 (Feb. 2, 2015), p. 35701, XP020281675. |
Daniel Markl et al: “In-line quality control of moving objects by means of spectral-domain OCT”, Optics and Lasers in Engineering, vol. 59, Aug. 1, 2014 (Aug. 1, 2014), pp. 1-10, XP055671920, Amsterdam, NL. |
Piovarci, Michal, Michael Foshey, Timothy Erps, Jie Xu, Vahid Babaei, Piotr Didyk, Wojciech Matusik, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Bernd Bickel. “Closed-Loop Control of Additive Manufacturing via Reinforcement Learning.” (2021). |
Oomen, Tom. “Advanced motion control for next-generation precision mechatronics: Challenges for control, identification, and learning.” In IEEJ International Workshop on Sensing, Actuation, Motion Control, and Optimization (SAMCON), pp. 1-12. 2017. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220111601 A1 | Apr 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | PCT/US2021/030647 | May 2021 | US |
Child | 17560515 | US |