Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US7031893?ie=ISO-8859-1&dq=7751826
Timestamp: 2015-01-29 00:58:19
Document Index: 712393638

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 60', 'art 170', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3']

Patent US7031893 - Apparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending ... - Google PatentsSearch Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »Sign inAdvanced Patent SearchPatentsA setup planning technique is provided in which a family of parts to be manufactured is identified, and the setup constraints imposed by the various bending operations in the part family are determined. The setup constraints may define or describe spatial constraints on the sizes and locations of various...http://www.google.com/patents/US7031893?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US7031893 - Apparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operationsAdvanced Patent SearchPublication numberUS7031893 B2Publication typeGrantApplication numberUS 09/818,505Publication dateApr 18, 2006Filing dateMar 28, 2001Priority dateSep 11, 1997Fee statusPaidAlso published asDE69838336D1, DE69838336T2, EP1015946A1, EP1015946B1, US6233538, US20010016805, WO1999013387A1Publication number09818505, 818505, US 7031893 B2, US 7031893B2, US-B2-7031893, US7031893 B2, US7031893B2InventorsSatyandra Kumar Gupta, David Alan BourneOriginal AssigneeAmada Company, Ltd., Amada America, Inc.Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefManPatent Citations (34), Non-Patent Citations (23), Referenced by (8), Classifications (16), Legal Events (3) External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, EspacenetApparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operationsUS 7031893 B2Abstract A setup planning technique is provided in which a family of parts to be manufactured is identified, and the setup constraints imposed by the various bending operations in the part family are determined. The setup constraints may define or describe spatial constraints on the sizes and locations of various tooling stages in the setup. After identifying setup constraints, setup plans are generated that satisfy all setup constraints. Any setup plan that satisfies all setup constraints may then be utilized to accommodate every part in the part family. Constraint propagation techniques may be utilized to identify compatible setup constraints and create setup plans. According to the various features and aspects of the invention, dissimilar sheet metal parts can share setups, and the need for extra tooling and fixturing may be minimized. Further, the present invention provides potential savings over state-of-the-art systems, and increases production capability and overall through-put of manufacturing facilities.
where �L� is a length of a bend line of the part, and �tolerance� is a predetermined tolerance amount.
where �Gr� is a gap length on a right side of a bend position of the part, �Gl� is a gap length on a left side of the bend position of the part, �L� is a length of a bend line at the bend position the part, and �clearance� is a predetermined clearance amount.
where �Dl� is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, �Dr� is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right adjacent tooling stage, �L� is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, �S� is a length of the present tooling stage, and �P� is a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
where �Dl� is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, �Dr� is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right tooling stage, �L� is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, �S� is a length of the present tooling stage, and �P� is a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
21. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part comprise: a gap length �Gr� on a right side of a bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the right side of the bend position; a gap length �Gl� on a left side of the bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the left side of the bend; an obstruction length �Or� on the right side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the right side of the bend position; an obstruction length �Ol� on the left side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which no tooling is allowed on the left side of the bend position; a safety distance �Sr� on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the right side of the bend position; and a safety distance �Sl� on the left side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the left side of the bend position.
where �Dl� is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, �Dr� is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right adjacent tooling stage, �L� is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, �S� is a length of the present tooling stage, and �P� s a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
28. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part comprise: a gap length �Gr� on a right side of a bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the right side of the bend position; a gap length �Gl� on a left side of the bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the left side of the bend; a obstruction length �Or� on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the right side of the end position; an obstruction length �Ol� on the left side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the left side of the bend position; a safety distance �Sr� on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the right side of the bend position; and a safety distance �Sl� on the left side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the left side of the bend position.
In recent years, there have been developments and attempts to improve the conventional sheet metal manufacturing process and to improve efficiency of the overall process. For example, computer-based systems and robotic manipulators and controllers have been developed to provide a greater level of automation in the production process of sheet metal components. Further, research and development has taken place in the field of intelligent/expert systems for automatically generating and/or providing bending plan and other manufacturing information required to produce sheet metal components. For instance, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/386,369, entitled �Intelligent System For Generating And Executing A Sheet Metal Bending Plan�, filed on Feb. 9, 1995, in the names of David A. BOURNE et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,969,973, the contents of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses an intelligent, automated bending system which generates a bending plan and then executes the generated bending plan to produce a bend sheet metal component. The system disclosed therein includes one or more expert modules or subsystems for providing expert information, including tooling information, to a bend sequence planner, which determines and generates a final bending plan. A sequencer is also provided for executing the final generated plan, and for formulating and transmitting the appropriate commands to the various components within the bending workstation in order to produce the bend sheet metal components. In addition, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/338,115, entitled �Method For Planning/Controlling Robot Motion�, filed on Nov. 9, 1994, in the names of David A. BOURNE et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,684, the contents of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses an expert system for planning controlling the motion of a robot in order to facilitate the production of sheet metal components.
where �L� is a length of a bend line of the part, and �tolerance� is a predetermined tolerance amount. The minimum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the bend length, with a predetermined tolerance (e.g., 2 mm). Reducing the tooling stage length by more than the predetermined tolerance may result in poor bend quality.
where �Gr� is a gap length on a right side of a bend position of the part, �Gl� is a gap length on a left side of the bend position of the part, �L� is a length of a bend line at the bend position the part, and �clearance� is a predetermined clearance amount. The maximum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the overall gap around the bend, with a predetermined clearance (e.g., 2 mm). The actual setting of the clearance amount may depend upon the accuracy of the part placement with respect to the tools of the press brake.
(Gr+Gl+L−clearance)≧S≧(L−tolerance), Gl−0.5(clearance)≧P, Gr−0.5(clearance)≧(S−P−L), Sr≦(S−P−L+Dr),and Sl≦(P+Dl),
XL j,i ≦X j −X i ≦XR j,i where �Xi� is a reference position of operation i, �Xj� is a reference position of operation j, �XLj,i� is a leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation i, and �XRj,i� is a rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation i. Further, the act of identifying operations with compatible constraints may comprise determining that a plurality of operations n are compatible when there exists a vector {X1, X2, . . . ,Xn} which satisfies the following for every pair of operations i,j (where i does not equal j) of the plurality of bending operations n:
X j −X i ≦XR j,l, X i −X j ≦−XL j,i where �X,� is a reference position of operation i, �Xj� is a reference position of operation j, �YLj,i� is a leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation i, and �XRj, l� is a rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation i.
In addition to the provisioning of an expert system in the server module 32, an intelligent manufacturing system (not shown in FIG. 1A) may also be integrated or provided with the expert sheet metal planning and bending system of the present invention. Such an intelligent manufacturing system may be implemented at server module 32 and may be adapted to manage and distribute design and manufacturing information throughout the facility or factory 38. Various features may be provided with the intelligent manufacturing system, including the ability to search and retrieve previous job information from a central database, such as database 30, so that previous job information (which may include design and manufacturing information of previously produced parts) may be used when generating a plan for developing a new part that has the same or similar features to that of a previously produced part. Further, the intelligent manufacturing system may also provide various graphical user interfaces in order to facilitate analysis of the bending plan by a machine or bending operator. By way of a non-limiting example, the various features disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/690,084, filed on Jul. 31, 1996, entitled �Apparatus And Method For Managing And Distributing Design And Manufacturing Information Throughout A Sheet Metal Production Facility,� in the names of K. HAZAIVIA et al., and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/016,958, filed on May 6, 1996, entitled �Apparatus And Method For Managing And Distributing Design And Manufacturing Information Throughout A Sheet Metal Production Facility,� in the names of K. HAZAMA et al., both corresponding to U.S. Pat. No. 5,864,482, the contents of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference in their entireties, may be used and implemented in the intelligent manufacturing system.
As noted above, server module 32 may include various software-based applications for implementing an expert planning system (see, e.g., expert planning system 70 in FIG. 1B) and other systems, such as an intelligent manufacturing system (intelligent manufacturing system 60 in FIG. 1B). An interface module or application (not shown) may be provided at server module 32 for facilitating the transfer of messages and information between the various applications, and between the station modules and the server module. The interface application may be a separate module/application, or may be integrated (e.g., as one or more submodules) within the applications of the server module 32. In this regard, it is noted that the various features and aspects disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/706,830, filed on Sep. 3, 1996, entitled �Apparatus And Method For Integrating Intelligent Manufacturing System With Expert Sheet Metal Planning And Bending System,� in the names of K. HAZAMA et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,207, the content of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, may be implemented to facilitate such integration and utilization of each application of server module 32.
FIGS. 3A�3D illustrate in greater detail the various operations that may be performed when bending a sheet metal workpiece 170 with the punch and die tools 200, 220 of a press brake. As discussed above, when performing a sheet metal bending operation, a flat sheet metal workpiece is bent using a set of complimentary punch and die tools. These tools are mounted on a press brake, such as that shown in FIG. 2, which controls the relative motion between the punch and die, and provides the necessary bending pressure to bend the workpiece. FIGS. 3A�3D illustrate the basic steps of a sheet-metal bending operation. Typically, a flat workpiece 170 is to be bent along a bend line 190 (illustrated by the dashed line in FIG. 3A) to form the appropriate intermediate or final part. Initially, the flat sheet metal workpiece 170 is positioned on the die 220, as illustrated in FIG. 3A. Such positioning of the workpiece 170 may be performed manually by a bending operator or through the assistance of a robotic manipulator, such as that illustrated in FIG. 2. Further, back gauge mechanisms, such as mechanisms 240 in FIG. 2, may be provided to facilitate positioning of the workpiece 170 between the space formed between the die 220 and punch 200. Thereafter, the punch 200 may be positioned on the sheet metal part 170, as illustrated in FIG. 3B, by bringing the punch 200 and die 220 toward each other. Bending of the workpiece 170 may then be performed, as shown in FIG. 3C, by applying the appropriate bending pressure and further bringing the complementary surfaces of the punch 200 and the die 220 toward each other. After the bend along the bend line 190 has been performed, the workpiece 170 may be removed from the press brake by separating the punch 200 and the die 220 from one another, as illustrated in FIG. 3D.
FIGS. 4A�4C illustrate exemplary sheet metal parts (referred hereinafter to as Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, respectively), including their respective starting flat part and final bent part. In each of the examples of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, the bend lines bl�bn are indicated by dash lines in the starting flat part and, for purposes of illustration, the various dimensions of each of the parts is also represented. When performing a bending operation on any of the bend lines of the part, it is possible to perform such an operation in one of two different ways. That is, each bend line connects two faces, and any one of these two faces can be kept outside of the press brake, resulting in two different possibilities for orienting the part in the press brake. For example, a bend line may define two sides of a workpiece, as illustrated in FIG. 5A, which results in two different possibilities for orienting and performing the bending operation, as illustrated in FIGS. 5B and 5C, respectively. Many times the intermediate workpiece geometry is such that only one of these choices will work without interfering with the components of the press brake. Therefore, when specifying a bending operation, both the bend line and the part orientation should be specified.
In FIG. 9B, the logic of an exemplary multi-part planning process is provided. According to an aspect of the present invention, multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operations may be performed on a variety of parts (Part 1�Part N). Rather than matching part features to existing manufacturing resources (i.e., tools and fixtures), the present invention uses an approach that allows process planning for multiple parts by first identifying the constraints imposed by a part feature on the tooling and setups that will be used to create that feature. That is, for each part (which may be represented by a geometric model), resource constraints are identified before a setup plan is determined that will satisfy multiple parts. The resource constraints may include, for example, a tool length or height constraint for performing the operation on the part. For example, if a part requires bending a 50 mm flange, the tooling planner will generate a resource or setup constraint which indicates that this operation can be performed by a tool segment of size 50 mm or greater. Similar setup constraints will also be determined for the other parts and bending operations to be performed. After gathering all of the resource or setup constraints, defined by the various features of the parts, setup planning will be performed to determine and identify a setup plan that works for multiple parts based on the defined resource constraints and the resources that are available (e.g., the tools that are available). For example, suppose it is determined that another part requires the bending of a 100 mm flange. This part would lead to a setup constraint indicating that this operation can be performed by a tool segment of size 100 mm or greater. In this case, the invention can setup a process plan using a tool segment of size 100 mm (as indicated from the available resources) which would work for both the part requiring a 50 mm flange and the part requiring a 100 mm flange.
As further shown in FIG. 10, after the tooling and bending operation sequence is determined, the tooling planner then may perform setup planning at steps S.8�S.24. In accordance with an aspect of the invention, setup planning may be performed through two main stages. That is, in the first stage, the setup constraints are generated for each operation (see, e.g., steps S.8�S.12 in FIG. 10), and then in the second main stage, these constraints are solved to create a setup plan that satisfies all the constraints generated in the previous step (see, e.g., steps S.16�S.24 in FIG. 10). This approach allows setup planning to be solved for multiple-part problems. For multi-part problems, setup constraints may be generated and tracked (i.e., which bending operation and which part leads to what setup constraint). For every bending operation, the intermediate workpiece geometry and the tool geometry impose constraints on the tooling stages that will be used to perform the bending operation. These constraints restrict the maximum tool stage length and require certain minimum gaps between tooling stages. Further, these constraints determine if more than one operation can be done on the same tooling stage. Every feasible press brake setup should, therefore, respect these constraints. The intermediate workpiece shape is determined by the bending sequence. As a result, the type of tools and the bending sequence will have a strong influence on the setup constraints.
Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10, at step S.8, the setup constraints are identified by the tooling planner for every bending operation in the given set of operation sequences. Setup constraints may be generated by analyzing any potential interference problems between geometric models of the tool and the intermediate workpiece. Such setup constraints describe the length restrictions on tooling stages and also identify the required gaps between tooling stages, as noted above. Various techniques and methods may be utilized for generating setup constraints. For example, in accordance with an aspect of the present invention, setup constraints may be generated by constructing geometric models of the sheet metal part at each bending stage and analyzing part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters. In particular, the tooling planner may first construct a geometric model of the workpiece for each bending operation (i.e., an intermediate part model may be constructed of the part at the time of each bending operation), and then a geometric intersection may be determined of the intermediate part model with the model of a tooling stage spanning the entire press brake tooling space. Thereafter, the tooling planner may analyze the part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters. An exemplary process for generating setup constraints is provided below (see, e.g., FIGS. 11A�11C and 12), in accordance with the aspects and features of the invention.
As shown in FIG. 10, step S.8 may be repeated for each bending operation. Therefore, at step S.12, logic flow will return to step S.8 as long as it is determined that setup constraints have not been defined for each of the defined bending operations of each part (No at step S.12). After all of the setup constraints have been defined (Yes at step S.12), the tooling planner may then generate a setup plan according to steps S.16�S.24. That is, at step S.16, the tooling planner may identify bending operations within compatible setup constraints, and then assign the operations with compatible constraints to the same stages at step S.20. The setup plan may then be stored and/or provided as output at step S.24 by the tooling planner. Thereafter, the operations planning routine may terminate, as illustrated in FIG. 10.
Referring now to FIGS. 11A�11C and 12, a detailed discussion of the manner in which setup constraints may be generated will be provided, in accordance with an aspect of the invention. In addition, a concrete example of setup constraints that may be generated for an exemplary part will be provided. As noted above, the tooling planner will identify setup constraints for each bending operation after the bending tools and operation sequence have been determined (see, for example, step S.8 in FIG. 10). Since the various bending operations will impose constraints on tooling stage lengths, the tooling planner may compute setup constraints resulting from the various bending operations. Setup constraints may be generated by analyzing any potential interference problems between the geometric models of the tool and the intermediate workpiece or part. These constraints will describe the length restrictions on tooling stages and identify the required gaps between tooling stages. Setup constraints may be generated by first constructing a geometric model of the workpiece at the time of each bending operation. This model is referred to herein as the intermediate part model. After constructing the intermediate part model, a geometric intersection of the intermediate part model and the model of the tooling stage spanning the entire press brake tooling space may be performed. By performing the geometric intersection, the part tool intersection regions may be analyzed to determine the setup constraint parameters.
FIGS. 11A�11C illustrate an exemplary setup constraint generation for an exemplary part. In FIG. 11A, an exemplary sheet metal part is illustrated (in its initial flat stage), in which a bend line 190 is defined at a middle tab 170 b of the sheet metal workpiece 170. In this example, the workpiece 170 includes tabs 170 a, 170 c on both sides of the proposed bend intersection with the die 220 (see, for example, FIG. 11B), as determined by a geometric intersection test performed by the tooling planner. Therefore, this bend cannot be performed on an infinitely long tooling stage. The minimum tooling stage length for this operation therefore given by the following:
where �L� is the length of the bend line (see, for example, FIG. 11C) and �tolerance� is a predetermined tolerance. That is, the minimum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the bend length, with a predetermined tolerance (e.g., 2 mm). Reducing the tooling stage length by more than the predetermined tolerance may result in poor bend quality.
where �Gr� is the gap length on the right side of the bend, �Gl� is the gap length on the left side of the bend (see, for example, FIG. 11C), �L� is the length of the bend line, and �clearance� is a predetermined clearance. That is, the maximum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the overall gap around the bend, with a predetermined clearance (e.g., 2 mm). The actual setting of the clearance amount will, of course, depend upon the accuracy of the part placement with respect to the tools of the press brake. Further, in view of the tolerance and clearance restrictions, adjacent stages should also clear any recommended or required safety margins.
Gr+Gl+L−clearance≧S≧L−tolerance Gl−0.5(clearance)≧P Gr−0.5(clearance)≧S−P−L Sr≦S−P−L+Dr Sl≦P+Dl In the above-noted setup constraints, �Dl� is the distance between the present stage and the left adjacent stage, �Dr� is the distance between the present stage and the right adjacent stage, �L� is the length of the bend line, �S� is the length of the tooling stage, and �P� is the relative position of the bend line with respect to the left edge of the tooling stage.
Once all of the setup constraints for a partial or complete bend sequence have been computed, the tooling planner may then proceed with setup planning, as discussed above with reference to FIG. 10 (see, e.g., steps S.16�S.24). When performing setup planning, the tooling planner may create setups that involve the minimum number of tooling stages and that fits on the die rail of the press brake. As discussed above, the tooling planner first identifies bending operations with compatible setup constraints (see, for example, step S.16 in FIG. 10) and then generates setup plans by assigning bending operations with compatible setup constraints to the same stages (see, for example, step S.20 in FIG. 10). A more detailed description of these steps, and the various functions and operations which may be performed by the tooling stage when performing setup planning, will now be provided below, in accordance with an aspect of the present invention.
XL j,i ≦X j −X i ≦XR j,i where �XLj,i� is the leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation I, and �XRj,i� is the rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation I. FIG. 13 illustrates this concept graphically.
X j −X i ≦XR j,i X i −X j ≦−XL j,i If there exists a vector {X1, X2, . . . , Xn} which satisfies the above inequalities, then n operations may be considered compatible. Standard linear programming techniques may be utilized to determine if such a vector exists. For example, iterative constraint propagation methods may be utilized to identify the relative position range of every operation in the pool. That is, an iterative constraint propagation method may be used to solve the linear programming problem. Generally, a constraint-network may be instantiated to keep track of the range of the possible positions of various bending operations with respect to each other. Initially, a randomly selected pair of operations from the set of operations may be selected and then added to the constraint-network. After adding these operations to the constraint-network, the position range for these two operations may be calculated. Thereafter, additional operations may be added to the constraint-network one at a time. Each time an operation is added to the constraint-network, the position ranges of all the operations in the network may be updated to account for the new operation. When all of the bending operations have been added to the network, feasible positions of various operations with respect to each other may be selected from the possible position ranges.
By way of a non-limiting example, FIG. 14 illustrates exemplary processes and operations that may be performed by the tooling planner when performing setup planning (i.e., the steps of S.16�S.24 in FIG. 10). As illustrated in FIG. 14, after the setup planning routine is initialized, the tooling planner may set O to the list of all possible bending operations to be performed on the family of parts at step S.110. Thereafter, at step S.120, the most constraining bending operation o in the list O may be determined. That is, for the operations contained in the list O, the most constraining bending operation may be determined. This may be performed based on various processes and techniques. For example, the collinear bend operation with the maximum interruption index in the list O may be located and identified as the most constraining bending operation at step S.120. If there are no collinear operations, then the bending operation in the list O with the maximum length (e.g., based on the length of the bend line) may be located and identified as the most constraining bending operation.
For purposes of illustration, and to provide a further example of the benefits of the invention, FIGS. 16A�16C and FIG. 17 illustrate various setup planning examples based on the exemplary sheet metal parts of FIGS. 4A�4C. In particular, FIGS. 16A, 16B and 16C illustrate independent press brake setup for the exemplary parts in FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, respectively. Further, FIG. 17 illustrates a composite setup plan for the exemplary parts of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, using the multi-part setup planning features of the invention.
W1: Part 1 (shown in FIG. 4A)Ow1: [(b7)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b1)]
W2: Part 2 (shown in FIG. 4B), OW2: [(b1)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b7)]W3: Part 3 (shown in FIG. 4C), OW3: [(b1)(b2)(b3)(b4)(b5)]
Z: {Part 1, Part 2, Part 3} (shown in FIGS. 4A�4C)Oz: [(b7)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b1)(b6)],[(b1)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b7)], [(b1)(b2)(b3)(b4)(b5)]}
Patent CitationsCited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS4888692Nov 10, 1988Dec 19, 1989Texas Instruments IncorporatedReal-time scheduling systemUS4912644Jun 1, 1989Mar 27, 1990Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.Method of and apparatus for unfolding a sheet metal part employing a CAD apparatusUS5005394Dec 14, 1988Apr 9, 1991Amada Company, LimitedProgramming system for the single arm bending robotUS5029462Aug 4, 1989Jul 9, 1991Amada Company, LimitedMethod of bending a workpiece including setting a bending process, and preparing bending dataUS5047916Mar 24, 1989Sep 10, 1991Kabushiki Kaisha ToshibaMethod and apparatus of free space enumeration for collision avoidanceUS5083256Oct 17, 1989Jan 21, 1992North American Philips CorporationPath planning with transition changesUS5089970Oct 5, 1989Feb 18, 1992Combustion Engineering, Inc.Integrated manufacturing systemUS5115400Mar 30, 1990May 19, 1992Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki KaishaCad/cam apparatusUS5187958Aug 28, 1991Feb 23, 1993Amada Company, LimitedMethod of positioning a metal sheet for a sheetmetal working machineUS5287433Dec 18, 1990Feb 15, 1994Amada Company LimitedDevice for control of a robot manipulator for a metal sheet bending installationUS5297054Apr 3, 1992Mar 22, 1994General Motors CorporationExpert system for automically generating gear designsUS5307282Nov 6, 1989Apr 26, 1994Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod of computer-aided prediction of collisions between objects including fabrication tools and parts to be fabricatedUS5315522Nov 6, 1992May 24, 1994Kenneth A. KauffmanTable bender controllerUS5396265Sep 17, 1990Mar 7, 1995Massachusetts Institute Of TechnologyComputer aided design systemUS5432887Mar 16, 1993Jul 11, 1995Singapore Computer SystemsNeural network system and method for factory floor schedulingUS5434791Jun 29, 1993Jul 18, 1995Electronic Data Systems CorporationProduct structure managementUS5453933Sep 8, 1993Sep 26, 1995Hurco Companies, Inc.CNC control systemUS5485390Nov 30, 1993Jan 16, 1996The United States Of America As Represented By The Secrectary Of The Air ForceComputer aided design systemUS5587914Mar 17, 1995Dec 24, 1996Hewlett-Packard CompanyApparatus and method for computer-aided design of sheet metal fabricated partsUS5642291Dec 26, 1995Jun 24, 1997Amada Company, Limited Of JapanSystem for creating command and control signals for a complete operating cycle of a robot manipulator device of a sheet metal bending installation by simulating the operating environmentUS5659478Feb 21, 1995Aug 19, 1997Motorola, Inc.Rapid product realization processUS5822207Sep 3, 1996Oct 13, 1998Amadasoft America, Inc.Apparatus and method for integrating intelligent manufacturing system with expert sheet metal planning and bending systemUS5828575Jul 31, 1996Oct 27, 1998Amadasoft America, Inc.Apparatus and method for managing and distributing design and manufacturing information throughout a sheet metal production facilityUS5835684Nov 9, 1994Nov 10, 1998Amada Company, Ltd.In a computerUS5864482Jul 31, 1996Jan 26, 1999Amadasoft America, Inc.For producing partsUS5969973Feb 9, 1995Oct 19, 1999Amada Company, Ltd.Intelligent system for generating and executing a sheet metal bending planUS5971585Sep 9, 1997Oct 26, 1999International Business Machines CorporationBest can do matching of assets with demand in microelectronics manufacturingUS6233538 *Sep 11, 1997May 15, 2001Amada America, Inc.Apparatus and method for multi-purpose setup planning for sheet metal bending operationsEP0335314A2Mar 28, 1989Oct 4, 1989Kabushiki Kaisha ToshibaMethod and apparatus of free space enumeration for collision avoidanceEP0355454A2Jul 26, 1989Feb 28, 1990The Boeing CompanyMethod of fabricating sheet metal parts and the likeEP0397904A1May 19, 1989Nov 22, 1990Hewlett-Packard GmbHMethod for generating graphical models and computer aided design systemEP0402475A1Dec 8, 1989Dec 19, 1990Fanuc Ltd.Method of determining expanded shape of a product in a cad systemEP0419013A2Jul 27, 1990Mar 27, 1991Hewlett-Packard CompanyApparatus and method for computer-aided design of sheet metal fabricated partsWO1996015481A2Nov 9, 1995May 23, 1996Amada Co LtdIntelligent system for generating and executing a sheet metal bending plan* Cited by examinerNon-Patent CitationsReference1"Bending Soft", Literature on the AMACOM AP40, No. 9112-01, Amada Company Ltd., Japan (Publication Date Unknown), no page numbers.2"Inferenzmaschine Fuer Ein Biegestadienplanungssystem" to M. Geiger et al., published May 1, 1992, vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 261-264, XP000271,922 of ZWF Zeitschrift Fur Wirtschaftliche Fertigung Und Automatisierung, only abstract is translated.3AMACOM: AP200 Literature, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.4AMACOM: AP40 Literature, Version 4, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.5AMACOM: AP60 Literature, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.6Amada Windows Unfold: Manual for Cadkey. Table of Contents, pp. 1-35, and Index, U.S. Amada, Ltd., Buena Park, CA (Nov. 1995).7Arbon et al., "Auto-MPS: an automated master production scheduling system for large volume manufacturing", IEEE 10th Conf. Art. Intell. Applicat., pp. 26-32, no date.8Bourne et al., David A., "Feature Exchange Language Programmer's Guide", Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Jan. 1994), no page numbers.9Bourne et al., David A., "The Operational Feature Exchange Language", Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-90-06, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Mar. 1990), no page numbers.10Bourne et al., David A., "Using The Feature Exchange Language In The Next Generation Controller", Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-90-19. The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Aug. 1990), no page numbers.11Bourne, David A., "Intelligent Manufacturing Workstations", which appeared in Knowledge-Based Automation of Processes, Session at the 1992 ASME Winter Annual Meeting (Nov. 1992).12Gopalakrishnan et al., "Product design for manufacturing: the use of knowledge based systems in concurrent engineering", IEEE Int. Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 566-568, no date.13Jain et al., "Expert Simulation for on-line scheduling", IEEE 1989 Winter Sim. Conf. pp. 930-935.14Levner et al., "A tandern expert system for batch scheduling in a CIM System based on group technology concepts", 95 INRIA/IEEE Symp. Emerg, Tech. And Factory Autosnat., pp. 667-674.15Niew et al., "Knowledge based master productions scheduler", IEEE 1st Conf. Expert Planning Sys., pp. 88-93, no date.16Nomura et al., "A hcuristics guided scheduling framework for domains with complex conditions", IEEE 6th Int. Conf. Tools Art, Intell., pp. 752-755, no date.17Numao et al., "Scheplan-a scheduling expert for stcel-making process", IEEE AI '88, pp. 467-472.18Ohkura et al., "Semiconductor process line scheduling expert system", IEEE/UCS/SEMI Int. Symp. Semi. Manufact., pp. 89-92, no dates.19Readdie, "A Prototype AI-based tool for production scheduling", IEEE Coll. Art. Intell. in Planning for Product Control, pp. 2/1-2/4, no dates.20Tomastik et al., "Optimization-based scheduling of flexible manufacturing system for apparel production", 34th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, pp. 3152-3157, no dates.21Uckun et al., "Managing genetic search in job shop scheduling", IEEE Expert, pp. 15-24, no date.22Wang, Cheng-Hua, "A Parallel Design System For Sheet Metal Parts ", Mechanical Engineering Report, presented at the Mechanical Engineering Department Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (May 1992).23Wysong Literature, The Perfect Forming Touch; New PH PLUS Series, DNC Press Brakes, Cat. PHP-1, Wysong and Miles Company, Greensboro, NC (1993), no page numbers.Referenced byCiting PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS7398129 *Oct 7, 2004Jul 8, 2008Amada Company, LimitedRepresentation of sheet metal part modelsUS7617015 *Dec 21, 2006Nov 10, 2009Sap AgGenerating planning-level time and capacity requirement formulas for manufacturing processesUS7894922Dec 21, 2006Feb 22, 2011Sap AgStructural transformation of execution-level manufacturing process routings into planning-level routingsUS7894930Feb 7, 2008Feb 22, 2011Dp Technology, Corp.Method and device for composite machining based on tool-path pattern types with tool axis orientation rulesUS8027857Mar 14, 2006Sep 27, 2011Sap AgRough-cut manufacturing operations for use in planningUS8140306 *Apr 22, 2005Mar 20, 2012Autoform Engineering GmbhDetermination of process operations in order to describe forming processes on a forming partUS8239362Jun 11, 2010Aug 7, 2012The Boeing CompanyUsing metadata fragments as authoritative manufacturing work instructionsUS8428768Jan 26, 2011Apr 23, 2013Dp Technology Corp.Method and device for composite machining based on tool-path pattern types with tool axis orientation rules* Cited by examinerClassifications U.S. Classification703/6, 703/2, 703/1International ClassificationG06G7/48, G06F17/50, B21D5/01, G05B19/4097, B25J9/16Cooperative ClassificationG05B2219/40054, G05B2219/40628, G05B2219/40517, G05B2219/40476, G05B19/4097, B25J9/1666European ClassificationG05B19/4097, B25J9/16P3CLegal EventsDateCodeEventDescriptionOct 10, 2013FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 8Oct 12, 2009FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 4Dec 18, 2007CCCertificate of correctionRotateOriginal ImageGoogle Home - Sitemap - USPTO Bulk Downloads - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - About Google Patents - Send FeedbackData provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services