Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US6836699?dq=7,446,777
Timestamp: 2014-03-13 12:36:47
Document Index: 649531030

Matched Legal Cases: ['art.\n4', 'art.\n5', 'art.\n6', 'application No. 60', 'application No. 60', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10']

Patent US6836699 - Automated quoting of molds and molded parts - Google PatentsSearch Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »Sign inAdvanced Patent SearchPatentsAutomated, custom mold manufacture for a part begins by creating and storing a collection of information of standard tool geometries and surface profiles machinable by each of the standard tool geometries. A customer sends a CAD file for the part to be molded to the system. The system assesses the CAD...http://www.google.com/patents/US6836699?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US6836699 - Automated quoting of molds and molded partsAdvanced Patent SearchPublication numberUS6836699 B2Publication typeGrantApplication numberUS 10/325,286Publication dateDec 28, 2004Filing dateDec 19, 2002Priority dateDec 27, 2001Fee statusPaidAlso published asUS7590466, US20030126038, US20050096780Publication number10325286, 325286, US 6836699 B2, US 6836699B2, US-B2-6836699, US6836699 B2, US6836699B2InventorsLawrence Joseph Lukis, Yuri Arnoldovich Dreizin, John Mark GilbertOriginal AssigneeThe Protomold Company, Inc.Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefManPatent Citations (11), Non-Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (23), Classifications (14), Legal Events (5) External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, EspacenetAutomated quoting of molds and molded partsUS 6836699 B2Abstract Automated, custom mold manufacture for a part begins by creating and storing a collection of information of standard tool geometries and surface profiles machinable by each of the standard tool geometries. A customer sends a CAD file for the part to be molded to the system. The system assesses the CAD file to determine various pieces of mold manufacturing information. One or more acceptability criteria are applied to the part, such as whether the part can be manufactured in a two-piece, straight-pull mold, and whether the mold can by CNC machined out of aluminum. If not, the system sends a file to the customer graphically indicating which portions of the part need modification to be manufacturable. The system provides the customer with a quotation form, that allows the customer to select several parameters, such as number of cavities, surface finish and material, which an independent of the shape of the part. The quotation module then provides the customer with the cost to manufacture the mold or a number of parts. The quotation is based in part upon mold manufacturing time as automatically assessed from the part drawings and based in part on the independent parameters selected by the customer. The customer's part is geometrically assessed so the system automatically selects appropriate tools and computes tool paths for mold manufacture. In addition to the part cavity, the system preferably assesses the parting line, the shutoff surfaces, the ejection pins and the runners and gates for the mold. The preferred system then generates CNC machining instructions to manufacture the mold, and the mold is manufactured in accordance with these instructions.
What is claimed is: 1. A method of automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part, the mold defining a cavity corresponding in shape to the part to be molded, the method comprising:
receiving a CAD file for the part to be molded, the CAD file defining a part surface profile; assessing cost-affecting parameters of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture determined by the part surface profile; providing the customer with at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile; allowing the customer to select one of the provided customer-selectable values; automatically generating a quotation for mold manufacture and/or part manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting parameters determined by part surface profile and based in part upon the customer-selected value; and automatically transmitting the automatically generated quotation to the customer. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the CAD file is received directly from the customer.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile comprises a menu of possible number of cavities in the mold, such that the automatically generated quotation varies based upon how many cavities the customer selects for the part.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile comprises a menu of available injection moldable plastics, such that the automatically generated quotation varies based upon which plastic the customer selects for the part.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile comprises a menu of possible surface finishes, such that the automatically generated quotation varies based upon which surface finish the customer selects for the part.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile comprises a menu of number of parts in a production run, such that the automatically generated quotation non-linearly varies based upon how many parts the customer selects to be run.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the automatically generated quotation comprises a series of piece price quotations covering different lot sizes, the series of piece price quotations varying non-linearly based upon how many parts the customer selects to be run.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile comprises a menu of potential delivery times, such that the automatically generated quotation non-linearly varies based upon lead time required by the customer.
automatically determining physical geometry modification locations for the CAD file on the part to be molded; creating a proposed modification CAD file which highlights the physical geometry modification locations relative to remaining unaltered portions of the part surface profile, wherein the automatically generated quotation is based upon the proposed modification CAD file; and transmitting a rendering of the proposed modification CAD file to the customer together with the automatically generated quotation. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises:
computer generating a series of CNC machining instructions corresponding to machining the mold to match the part surface profile, wherein the automatically generated quotation is based upon the computed CNC machining instructions. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises:
determining a parting line and corresponding shutoff surfaces between separable portions of the mold, wherein the automatically generated quotation varies based upon complexity of the parting line and corresponding shutoff surfaces. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises:
automatically identifying an estimated duration of material removal required for each discrete portion of the part surface profile, and wherein the automatically generated quotation varies based upon a total of estimated durations of material removal. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises:
automatically identifying the number and type of tools to be used in selected material removal steps for the mold, and wherein the automatically generated quotation varies based upon the number and type of tools to be used in selected material removal steps for the mold. 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises automatically assessing mold block area required for the part, and wherein the automatically generated quotation varies based upon required mold block area.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the act of assessing cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile comprises automatically assessing amount, depth and steepness of ribbing required for the part, and wherein the automatically generated quotation varies based upon the required amount, depth and steepness of ribbing.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the customer is provided with at least one menu of customer-selectable values on an internet web page.
17. A method of automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part; the mold defining a cavity corresponding in shape to the part to be molded, the method comprising:
receiving a CAD file for the part to be molded, the CAD file defining a part surface profile; automatically determining physical geometry modification locations for the CAD file on the part to be molded; creating a proposed modification CAD file which highlights the physical geometry modification locations relative to remaining unaltered portions of the part surface profile, automatically generating a quotation for mold manufacture and/or part manufacture based at least in part upon the cost-affecting parameters determined by part surface profile as modified in the proposed modification CAD file; and transmitting a rendering of the proposed modification CAD file to the customer together with the automatically generated quotation. 18. A system for automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part; the mold defining a cavity corresponding in shape to the part to be molded, the system comprising:
an address configured to receive a CAD file from a customer for the part to be molded, the CAD file defining a part surface profile; and one or more processors collectively programmed for: providing the customer with an internet page supplying at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile; automatically generating a quotation for mold manufacture and/or part manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting parameters determined by part surface profile and based in part upon the customer-selected value; and automatically transmitting the automatically generated quotation to the customer over the internet. 19. A method of automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part, the mold defining a cavity corresponding in shape to the part to be molded, the method comprising:
receiving a CAD file for the part to be molded, the CAD file defining a part surface profile; assessing cost-affecting parameters of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture determined by the part surface profile; receiving additional information from the customer impacting upon a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile; automatically generating a quotation for mold manufacture and/or part manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting parameters determined by part surface profile and based in part upon the additional information received; and automatically transmitting the automatically generated quotation to the customer. 20. A system for automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part; the mold defining a cavity corresponding in shape to the part to be molded, the system comprising:
an address configured to receive a CAD file from a customer for the part to be molded, the CAD file defining a part surface profile; and one or more processors collectively programmed for: assessing cost-affecting parameters of mold manufacture and/part manufacture determined by the part surface profile; automatically generating a quotation for mold manufacture and/or part manufacture based in part upon the cost-affecting parameters determined by part surface profile and based in part upon additional information received from the customer impacting upon a cost-affecting parameter of mold manufacture and/or part manufacture unassociated with part surface profile; and automatically transmitting the automatically generated quotation to the customer over the internet.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S) This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/056,755 of Lawrence J. Lukis et al., filed Jan. 24, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,200, entitled AUTOMATED CUSTOM MOLD MANUFACTURE, incorporated by reference herein, which claims priority from provisional patent application No. 60/344,187, filed Dec. 27, 2001, entitled AUTOMATED MANUFACTURE OF STRAIGHT PULL MOLDS FOR CUSTOM PLASTIC PARTS. This application also claims priority from provisional patent application No. 60/386,658 of Lawrence J. Lukis et al., filed Jun. 5, 2002, entitled IMPROVED PROTOTYPE QUOTING.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to the field of mold making, and particularly to the manufacture of molds, such as for use with injection molding presses, from blocks of metal. More specifically, the present invention relates to software supported methods, systems and tools used in the design and fabrication of molds for custom plastic parts, and in presenting information to customers for the customer to have selective input into various aspects of such design and fabrication which affect price of a customized part profile.
Injection molding, among other types of molding techniques, is commonly utilized to produce plastic parts from molds. Companies and individuals engaged in fabricating molds are commonly referred to as �moldmakers.� In many cases (referred to as �straight pull� injection molding), the mold consists of two metal blocks, one top and one bottom. Most commonly, the metal blocks are high quality machine steel, so the mold will have an acceptably long life. Opposed surfaces of each mold block are machined to jointly produce the required cavity in the shape of the desired part, as well as �shut-off� surfaces sealing the cavity when the mold blocks are pressed together. The line on which shut-off surfaces intersect with the surface of the cavity is called the parting line. The corresponding line on the surface of the part formed by the parting line is called the witness mark. After the mold assembly is set up in an injection molding press, parts are made by filling the cavity with molten plastic. The mold blocks are separated from each other after solidification of the molten plastic. The plastic part, normally sticking after separation to the bottom block, is then ejected by means of ejectors.
The moldmaking art has a long history of fairly gradual innovation and advancement. Molds are designed pursuant to a specification of the part geometry provided by a customer; in many cases, functional aspects of the plastic part also need to be taken into account. Historically, moldmaking involves at least one face-to-face meeting between the moldmaker and the customer, in which the customer submits detailed part geometry, usually with the aid of drawings, to the moldmaker and outlines the function of the part. Armed with knowledge of injection molding technology, the moldmaker designs the mold corresponding to the drawings of the part. In particular, the moldmaker orients the part to enable a straight pull mold separation, splits its surface into two areas separated by a suitable parting line, and replicates these areas in the top and bottom blocks. The moldmaker determines the location and shape of the shut-off surfaces and enlarges the dimensions of the cavity relative to the desired part as necessary to account for shrinkage of the plastic material. The moldmaker determines the size and position of one or more gates and runners to provide an adequate flow path for the molten plastic shot into the cavity. Sizes and locations of openings for ejection pins are also selected by the moldmaker. The machining operations to be performed to fabricate the designed mold are determined by the moldmaker. The moldmaker then runs various cutting tools, such as endmills, drills and reams, to machine the basic cavity, shut-off surfaces, runners, gates and ejector pin openings in blocks of metal. To produce certain hard-to-mill features in the mold, the moldmaker may also design and machine electrodes, and then perform electro-discharge machining (�EDM�) of the mold blocks. The moldmaker then outfits the mold blocks with ejection pins and prepares the mold assembly for use in the injection molding press. Throughout all of this design and fabrication, the moldmaker makes numerous design choices pertaining to the geometric details of the cavities to be machined as well as to the tools to be used for machining.
As in many other areas of industry, various computer advances have been applied to the moldmaking art. Today, most of customer's drawings are not prepared by hand, but rather through commercially available programs referred to as CAD (Computer-Aided Design) software. To produce drawings of the molds based on the drawings of custom parts, moldmakers also use CAD software, including packages developed specifically for this task. Also, in most moldmaking companies machining operations are not manually controlled. Instead, CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machines such as vertical mills are used to manufacture molds and, if needed, EDM electrodes in accordance with a set of CNC instructions. To compute detailed toolpaths for the tools assigned by the moldmaker and to produce long sequences of such instructions for CNC mills, computers running CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) software (again, including packages developed specifically for the moldmaking industry) are used by most moldmakers. CAD/CAM software packages are built around geometry kernels�computationally intensive software implementing numerical algorithms to solve a broad set of mathematical problems associated with analysis of geometrical and topological properties of three-dimensional (3D) objects, such as faces and edges of 3D bodies, as well as with generation of new, derivative 3D objects. At present, a number of mature and powerful geometry kernels are commercially available.
Oftentimes, however, additional factors come into play that can result in more significant deviations of injection molded plastic parts from the submitted design geometry. These factors are usually associated with certain features that are hard to machine in the mold using vertical mills. For example, very thin ribs in the part can be made by cutting deep and narrow grooves in the mold, but may require an endmill with an impractically large length to diameter ratio. Machining of angles between adjacent faces joined by small radius fillets (and, especially, of angles left without a fillet) may result in similar difficulties. Exact rendering of such features may substantially increase the cost of the mold, and even make its fabrication impractical with the technology available to the moldmaker.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention is a method and system of automated, custom quotation for manufacture of a mold and/or manufacture of a molded part. To begin the process, a customer sends a CAD file defining the surface profile for the part to be molded to the system. The system then assesses two different types of information to arrive at a quotation. First, the part surface profile (which could have any of a virtually infinite number of shapes) is assessed, to consider certain cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile. Further, the customer is provided with at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile. A quotation is then automatically generated which varies based upon both (i.e., infinitely-customized and menu-selected) types of information, and automatically transmitted to the customer.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an exemplary �cam� part desired by a customer.
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of the preferred method followed by the present invention to manufacture the mold for the exemplary �cam� part.
FIG. 10 is a computer screen shot of a preferred customer interface for the quotation system, showing customer selection of one parameter.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION The present invention will be described with reference to an exemplary part 10 shown in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 represents a �cam� part 10 designed by the customer. In part because the cam 10 is custom-designed (i.e., not a staple article of commerce) by or for this particular customer, the cam 10 includes numerous features, none of which have commonly accepted names. For purposes of discussion, we will give names to several of these features, including a part outline flange 12, a circular opening 14 with two rotation pins 16, a non-circular opening 18, a notch 20, a rib 22, a 60� corner hole 24, a 30� corner hole 26, and a partial web 28. However, workers skilled in the art will appreciate that the customer may in fact have no name or may have a very different name for any of these features.
In contrast to most moldmaker's operations which involve an initial face-to-face meeting with the customer to discuss drawings, the present invention allows the customer to provide the CAD file 32 without a face-to-face meeting. Such communication could occur through a mailed computer disk or through a dial-up modem site. In particular, however, an address on a global communications network such as the internet 36 is configured to receive customer CAD files 32. While the address could be a simple e-mail address, the preferred address is a website on the world-wide-web, configured to receive a CAD file 32 from a customer for the part to be molded. The �web-centric� customer interface preferably include a part submission page as part of the Customer Data Input module 30, which allows the customer to identify which standard CAD/CAM format is being used for the part drawings. Alternatively, the customer's CAD file 32 may be evaluated with an initial program which determines which type of standard CAD/CAM format is being used by the customer. If the CAD file 32 transmitted by the customer does not conform to a recognized standard CAD file format so as to be readable by the software of the present invention, the customer data input module returns an error message to the customer.
However, in the preferred embodiment, the program automatically identifies whether the part can be manufactured in a straight pull mold. Automatic �straight pull� manufacturability identification 40 involves selecting an orientation of the part in the customer's CAD file 32. Customers typically draw parts oriented with an x-, y- or z-axis which coincides with the most likely straight pull direction. FIGS. 3 and 4 represent an example of this. First, the cam 10 is solid modelled in the y-direction as a plurality of parallel line segments extending in the y-direction as shown in FIG. 3. The geometry analyzer module 38 then considers each line in the solid modeling, to determine whether the line is continuous and intersects the part surface profile only at a single beginning and a single ending. As shown here, line 48 is a first line which fails this test, as it intersects the cam 10 three times: once through the part outline flange 12 and twice on the sides of the 60� corner hole 24. The y-direction orientation of this part 10 thus fails to permit straight pull mold manufacturability 40. The cam 10 is next solid modelled in the z-direction as a plurality of parallel line segments extending in the z-direction as shown in FIG. 4. The geometry analyzer module 38 again considers each line in the solid modeling, to determine whether the line is continuous and intersects the part surface profile only at a single beginning and a single ending. As shown here in FIG. 4, all the line segments meet this test 40. Because the cam 10 passed the test 40 in the z-direction, it is thus determined that the part 10 can be oriented such that the z-direction is the straight pull direction. Thus, the cam 10 can be formed with a straight pull mold with the straight pull direction coinciding with the z-direction as drawn.
If desired, the �straight pull� manufacturability identification 40 can be terminated once it is determined that at least one orientation of the part 10 exists which can be manufactured with a straight pull mold. Preferably, additional tests continue to be automatically run by the geometry analyzer module 38 to confirm the best orientation of the part 10 which can be manufactured with a straight pull mold. For instance, a similar x-direction test is run, which this cam part 10 fails similar to the z-direction test. Similarly, additional orientational tests can be run, with the parallel lines in the solid modeling run at angles to the x-, y- and z-directions selected in the customer's CAD file 32. If the part passes �straight pull� manufacturability 40 on two or more orientations, then an assessment is made of which orientation should be used for the mold. Computer programmers will recognize that, once the acceptability criteria are defined to include a determination 40 of whether the part can be molded in a straight pull mold and the orientation necessary for molding in a straight pull mold, there are many equivalent programming methods to apply this acceptability criterion 40 to the customer's CAD file 32.
If the CAD file 32 for the part 10 fails the straight pull manufacturability test 40 such as due to the presence of undercuts, the preferred system provides the customer with a graphical image of the part 10 in an orientation that comes closest to passing the straight pull manufacturability test 40, but further with faces that have undercut portions highlighted. A comment is provided to the customer that the design of the part 10 should be revised to get rid of the undercuts.
If desired, the �straight pull� manufacturability criterion 40 may assess not only whether a straight pull mold is possible at the selected orientation, but may further evaluate draft angle. Draft angle affects the ease of machining the mold, as vertical edges are more difficult to machine. Draft angle also affects the ease of using the mold, as more vertical sides have a higher sticking force making ejection of the part 10 from the mold more difficult. Thus, more robust ejection pin systems maybe needed for parts with high draft angles. For example, in a preferred straight pull manufacturability criterion 40, draft angles on all sides of at least 0.5� are required. The straight pull manufacturability criterion 40 will thus automatically identify zero-drafted (vertical) surfaces and reject such parts as failing the straight pull manufacturability criterion 40.
For example, FIG. 5 depicts the profile of a standard � inch diameter ball endmill 50. This endmill 50 has a cutting depth 52 of slightly less than 2 inches limited by a collet 54. If a � inch thick groove in the mold has a height of 2 inches or more, then the standard � inch diameter endmill 50 cannot be used to form the groove portion of the cavity. The aspect ratios of standard endmills are based upon the strength of the tool steel (so the tool 50 won't easily break in use), and follow a similar aspect ratio curve. That is, all endmills which are less than � inch in diameter are shorter than the standard � inch diameter ball endmill 50. All endmills which are longer than 2 inches are wider than � inch in diameter. Thus, no tool in the standard set can be used to make a groove � inch thick with a height of 2 inches or more. As an approximate rule, ribs should be no deeper than ten times their minimum thickness. The geometry analyzer module 38 includes analysis 42 run against the customer's CAD file 32, to conceptually compare the part shape against collected geometric information of a plurality of standard tool geometries, such a standard endmills. For the cam 10, all of the CAD file 32 passes except for the rib 22, which is too thin and long.
The CNC machining criterion 42 runs similar programming analysis to verify that each corner of the part 10 has a sufficient radius of curvature to permit machining by one of the standard CNC machining tools. For instance, the CNC machining criterion may limit the minimum radius of outside corners of the part to no less than � the minimum wall thickness. If the CAD file 32 fails either due to having too deep of grooves or having too tight of corners, the part fails the CNC machining criterion 42, and the customer must be informed. Computer programmers will recognize that, once the acceptability criteria 42 are defined to include a determination of whether groove depths and/or corner radii of the part permit standard CNC machining, there are many equivalent programming methods to apply this acceptability criterion to the customer's CAD file 32.
One of the preferred inputs to the customer data input module 30 from the customer 34 is the type of plastic material which is selected for the part 10. For instance, the customer data input module 30 may permit the customer to select from any of the following standard plastics: ABS (natural), ABS (white), ABS (black), ABS (gray�plateable), Acetyl/Delrin (natural), Acetyl/Delrin (black), Nylon (natural), Nylon (black), 13% glass filled Nylon (black), 33% glass filled Nylon (black), 33% glass filled Nylon (natural), 30% glass filled PET/Rynite (black), Polypropylene (natural), Polypropylene (black), Polycarbonate (clear), Polycarbonate (black), Ultem 1000 (black), Ultem 2200 (20% glass filled) (black), Ultem 2300 (30% glass filled) (black). Different plastics have different viscosity curves at molding temperatures, different solidification rates, and different shrinkage rates. In the preferred embodiment, the program further reviews a fourth acceptability criterion 46, of whether the mold geometry can be adequately injection molded with the plastic material selected by the customer. This acceptability criterion 46 involves an assessment of whether the mold contains areas that will not shrink uniformly for the selected plastic material, and whether gating can be readily machined into the mold, to result in an acceptable flow path for the plastic which will be met at an attainable mold temperature and pressure so the shot adequately and uniformly fills the cavity.
The proposed modification CAD file communication module 56 involves several different steps. First, information is stored about each way in which the part 10 fails an acceptability criterion 40, 42, 44, 46. For instance, not only will information be stored that the cam 10 fails because the rib 22 is too thin and long and because the notch 20 is too deep and thin, but information is also stored about the closest rib and notch which would pass the acceptability criteria 42, 44. That is, by making the rib 22 slightly thicker, the rib 22 can be formed in the mold with standard CNC endmills. By making notch 20 slightly thicker, the aluminum mold will withstand the forces of injection molding. The proposed modification CAD communication module 56 then generates a modified CAD file 58, which distinguishes between the portions of the part geometry which pass all acceptability criteria 40, 42, 44, 46 and the portions of the part geometry which fail at least one acceptability criteria 40, 42, 44, 46.
A drawing from the proposed modification CAD file 58 is shown as FIG. 6. The proposed modification CAD file 58 highlights the closest approximations 60, 62, relative to remaining unaltered portions of the cam design part surface profile 10 which pass all acceptability criteria 40, 42, 44, 46. Highlighting may be done through different line formats, different colors, etc. For instance, using one of predefined color coding schemes, colors are assigned to representative areas to show the identified association of the machinable points and to indicate the lack of appropriate tool. The part geometry supplemented by the color data is preferably placed in a file 58 using one of the standard graphical formats suitable for rendering interactively manipulated three-dimensional views of the part 10. The file 58 together with the legend explaining the color coding scheme used can be sent or otherwise made available to the customer for interactive viewing, possibly with additional comments. For instance, the file 58 might identify one or more zero-drafted deep ribs. Comments included with the file 58 may request that the customer redesign the part to introduce at least 0.5 degree draft on deep ribs, or may say that the quote price can be lowered if the rib's walls are drafted. The proposed modification CAD communication module 56 then automatically transmits the proposed modification CAD file 58 to the customer, so the customer can view the changes required for inexpensive manufacture of the mold.
Skilled moldmakers will recognize that there are seldom mold designs that can't be done, only mold designs that can't be done without adding significant complexity. For instance, a mold for the cam 10 as originally designed by the customer could be formed, but it would be formed of steel rather than aluminum and the rib portion 22 of the mold would be burned by EMD. The present invention is configured based upon the capabilities of the moldmaking shop. If the moldmaking shop can handle CNC machined aluminum molds as well as EMD steel molds, then the program may assess acceptability criteria for both types of processes. If the customer's CAD file 32 fails at least one acceptability criteria for the less expensive method of mold manufacture, then a first proposed modification CAD file 58 maybe generated and transmitted to the customer. If the customer's CAD file 32 passes all acceptability criteria for the more expensive method of mold manufacture, this information may be transmitted to the customer as well.
If the determined parting line is complex, it may be beneficial to inform the customer of the complexity in the parting line, either as part of the manufacturability criterion 40 or as part of the quoting module 64. Thus the customer may be allowed to have input in selection of a more simplified parting line, or the system may specifically suggest to the customer that the parting line or particular features in the part 10 which contribute to parting line complexity be moved.
A further separate indicator of mold manufacture time involves evaluation of draft angle, as discussed previously with regard to acceptability criteria 40 in the geometry analyzer module 38. Evaluation of draft angle can be enhanced by including the minimal draft angle into the mathematical expression for the price quotation. Steeper draft angles typically take more time and are more costly to machine. Further, parts with steeper draft angles are more difficult to eject from the mold. The preferred quoting module 64 further automatically assesses and accounts for the steepness of the draft angles required for the part 10, both as an indicator of mold manufacture time and as a potential difficulty in use of the mold during injection runs. With the preferred mold manufacturability acceptability criteria 40 requiring a draft angle of at least 0.5�, the preferred quoting module 64 includes additional costs (which vary based upon the draft angle) for draft angles in the range of 0.5 to 2.0�. If all sides are provided with draft angles of at least 2.0�, then no additional cost allowance due to a steep draft angle is included by the preferred quoting module 64.
The quoting module 64 communicates the quotation 66 to the customer, preferably through the internet 36 such as through the website (if real-time quotation is attained) or through a responsive e-mail to the customer's computer 34. The customer may then accept the quotation 66 through the same medium.
FIG. 10 depicts a screen shot 100 of a preferred customer interface for quoting module 64. The preferred quoting module 64 processes two different types of information to arrive at a quotation. First, the surface profile of the part 10 (which could have any of a virtually infinite number of shapes) is assessed, to consider certain cost-affecting parameters determined by the part surface profile. The second type of information is quite different from the infinite variability of the shape information, and involves providing the customer with at least one menu of customer-selectable values for a cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile.
For instance, a first preferred cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile is selected from a menu 102 of differing number of possible cavities. In order to provide the customer with a menu 102 of possible cavity numbers, the size and layout of the mold cavity 84 must first be assessed relative to the size of mold blocks available. For instance, a size comparison and mold layout analysis for one part 10 may result in a possibility of up to eight identical cavities being formed within a single mold block. The customer is then provided with a drop-down menu 102 of the number of possible cavities, for the customer to select between menu values of �1 cavity�, �2 cavities�, �4 cavities�, and �8 cavities�.
For a different part (not shown), the size comparison and mold layout analysis may result in a possibility over only four identical cavities being formed within a single mold block, in which case the drop-down menu 102 of the number of possible cavities for that part would only provide selectable values of �1 cavity�, �2 cavities� and �4 cavities�.
The number of cavities selected by the customer is then evaluated in the quoting module 64 as a cost parameter both for mold cost and for piece price cost, with mold cost increasing due to the additional time and cost required to machine more cavities, but with piece price cost decreasing because multiple parts can be run with each shot. The preferred quoting module computes a quotation on the basis of a mathematical expression which describes several components of the price�such as the cost of mold block, milling time, polishing time, setup-time in the press, etc. Some of these components may be independent of the number of cavities (e.g., setup time), some are directly proportional to the number of cavities (such as polishing time), some exhibit more complex dependance (for example, the cost of mold block for small parts does not depend on the number of cavities provided that several cavities fit in the same block�but increases if bigger mold block is needed). The quoting module 64 re-computes the quotation each time when the customer changes the available preferences.
A second preferred cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile which is menu selectable is surface finishes. The customer is provided with a drop-down menu 104 of offered surface finishes. For example, the customer may be provided with a drop-down menu 104 which allows the customer to select between values of �T-0 (finish to Protomold discretion. Tool marks may be visible)�, �SPI-C1 (600 Stone)�, �SPI-B1 (400 Paper)�, �T-1 (Medium bead blast finish�similar to a medium EDM finish)�, �T-2 (Coarse bead blast finish similar to a coarse EDM finish)� and �SPI-A2 (High Polish)�. In the preferred quoting module 64, the customer may select any of these different menu-provided surface finishes from a different drop-down menu 104, 106 for each side of the mold.
In an alternative embodiment (not shown), the customer may be permitted to select different surface finishes between different faces even on the same side of the mold. To avoid naming confusion over the different faces, the alternative quoting module provides a graphical representation of each side of the part with different faces marked with indicia, such as shaded in different colors. The quoting module then provides a drop-down menu for each colored shading on the graphical representation (i.e., �surface finish for blue face� menu, �surface finish for red face� menu, etc.) so the customer can select the surface finish applied to each colored face of the depicted cavity 84.
Once the customer selects the drop-down menu value for the surface finish, the quoting module 64 assesses the cost of applying the selected surface finish for the cavity 84, computed based upon the time, materials and tools required to apply the selected surface finish, preferably also as a function of the surface area for the applied finish.
A third preferred cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile which is menu selectable is material of the part. The customer is provided with a drop-down menu 108 of offered materials. The material or resin used for the part 10 is an integral consideration in the design process, affecting many material properties of the part 10 such as strength, flexibility, hardness, corrosion resistance, flammability, etc. Further, cost of each plastic material or resin is subject to change due to market conditions. Accordingly, the preferred material menu 108 provides numerous alternatives. For example, the customer may be provided with a drop-down menu 108 which allows the customer to select between the following seventy values: �Customer supplied�, �ABS, Natural (LUSTRAN 433-1050)�, �ABS, Black (CYCOLAC T-4500)�, �ABS, Black (LUSTRAN 433-4000)�, �ABS, White (LUSTRAN 248-2005)�, �ABS, Black (POLYLAC PA-765)�, �ABS Platable, Light Grey (LUSTRAN PG298)�, �ABS Platable, Gray (CYCOLAC MG37EP)�, �ABS/PC, Black (BAYBLEND FR 110-1510)�, �ABS, White (LUSTRAN 248-2005)�, �ABS/PC, Light Gray (BAYBLEND T85 2095)�, �ABS/PC, Black (CYCOLOY C2950-701)�, �ABS/PC, Natural (BAYBLEND T 45-1000)�, �ABS/PC, Black (BAYBLEND T 85-1510)�, �ABS/PC, Black (BAYBLEND T85 2D95)�, �Acetal Copolymer, Black (CELCON M90)�, �Acetal Homopolymer, Black (DELRIN 500 P BK602)�, �Acetal Homopolymer, Natural (DELRIN 500P NC010)�, �Acetal Homopolymer, 20% GF, Black (DELRIN 577-BK000)�, �Acetal Homopolymer, Black (DELRIN 500 CL BK601)�, �HDPE, Natural (HiD 9006)�, �LDPE, Natural (DOW LDPE 722)�, �Nylon 46, Natural (STANYL TW341)�, �Nylon 6, Natural (ZYTEL 7331F NC010)�, �Nylon 6, Black (ZYTEL 7331F dyed)�, �Nylon 6, Black (RTP 200A FR)�, �Nylon 66, Black (ZYTEL 101L BKB009)�, �Nylon 66, 13% GF, Black (ZYTEL 70G13 HSIL)�, �Nylon 66, 14% GF, Black (ZYTEL 8018 HS)�, �Nylon 66, 43% GF, Black (ZYTEL 74G43W BK196)�, �Nylon 66 33% GF, Natural (ZYTEL 70G33HSIL)�, �Nylon 66, 33% GF, Black (ZYTEL 70G33 HSIL BK031)�, �Nylon 66, Natural (ZYTEL 103 HSL)�, �Nylon 66, Natural (RTP 202 FR)�, �PBT 30% GF, Black (VALOX 420 SEO)�, �PBT 15% GF, Black (CRASTIN SK 652 FR)�, �PBT, Black (VALOX 357-1066)�, �PC, Opaque/White (MAKROLON 2558-3336)�, �PC, Black (LEXAN 940)�, �PC, Clear (MAKROLON 2405-1112)�, �PC, Clear (MAKROLON 2458-1112)�, �PC, Black (MAKROLON 2405-1510)�, �PC, 10% Glass, Black (MAKROLON 9415-1510)�, �PC 20% GF, Natural (MAKROLON 8325-1000)�, �PC 20% Glass, Black (MAKROLON 8325-1510)�, �PC, clear (MAKROLON 6455-1045)�, �PC, Infrared (LEXAN 121-S80362)�, �PEI, Black (ULTEM 1000-7101)�, �PEI, 20% GF, Black (ULTEM 2200-7301)�, �PEI 30% GF, Black (ULTEM 2300-7301)�, �PEI, 40% GF, Black (ULTEM 2400-7301)�, �PET 30% Glass, Black (RYNITE 530-BK503)�, �PET 45% Glass Mineral Flame Retardant, Black (RYNITE FR 945 BK507)�, �PET 35% Glass Mica Low Warp, Black (RYNITE 935 BK505)�, �PETG, Clear (EASTAR 6763)�, �PMMA Clear (PLEXIGLAS V052-100)�, �PP 20% Talc Filled, Natural (MAXXAM NR 218.G001-1000)�, �PP, Black (MAXXAM FR 301)�, �PP Copolymer, Natural (PROFAX 7531)�, �PP Copolymer, Natural (PROFAX SR 857M)�, �PP Homopolymer, Natural (PROFAX 6323)�, �PP Homopolymer, Natural (PROFAX 6523)�, �PS (GPPS), Clear (STYRON 666 Dwl)�, �PS (HIPS), Black (RC 3502B)�, �PS (HIPS), Natural (STYRON 498)�, �PUR, Natural (ISOPLAST 202EZ)�, �TPE, Natural (SANTOPRENE 211-45)�, �TPE, Black (SANTOPRENE 101-73)�, �TPU�Polyester, Black (TEXIN 285-1500)� and �TPU�Polyether, Natural(TEXIN 985-1000)�.
Once the customer selects the drop-down menu value for the material, the quoting module 64 assesses the cost of using the selected material. The primary input into the quotation module 64 based upon the selected material is the current raw material cost multiplied by the computed volume of the part plus sprews and runners. However, other costs considerations of the selected material may also be taken into account, such as ease of working with the material, wear on the mold 86 caused by the material, and shrink factor of the material. If the customer selects �customer supplied�, then the quotation module 64 minimizes the cost of the raw material itself, but maximizes the cost of working with the material to account for potential difficulties.
A fourth preferred cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile which is menu selectable is the estimated delivery date. For instance, the customer may be provided with a menu 110 permitting selection of a delivery date of �within 5 business days� or �10-15 business days�. Alternatively, additional or more specific levels of delivery date pricing may be provided. The preferred quotation module 64 thus includes a premium charged for rushed processing.
A fifth preferred cost-affecting parameter unassociated with part surface profile which is menu selectable is the number of parts or lot size for piece price quotation. For instance, the customer may be provided with a menu permitting selection of a piece price quotation in lots sizes of �100�, �500�, �1,000�, �2,000�, �5,000�, �10,000�, �20,000�, �100,000� or �200,000� parts. This piece price quotation may then be provided to the customer separately from the tooling charge. Alternatively, the preferred quotation module 64 quotes prices 112 for all these different lot sizes, so the customer can readily see how the lot size affects the piece price.
In the preferred system, the quoting module 64 operates in conjunction with the geometry analyzer module 38 to provide graphical feedback to the customer. Preferably, this feedback occurs in real time to allow the customer to redesign physical features of the part 10 (i.e., change the underlying CAD file 32 for the part 10) while obtaining real-time quotation information of how the redesign affects the quotation.
The quoting module 64 is another important tool which can be used by design engineers separately from other facets of the preferred system, such as to compare different design alternatives. Since it is fast and easy, instant online quoting is a powerful tool for budgeting and comparing design alternatives during the development process. Design engineers may use online quoting several times in the design of a single part and online quoting will become a very important part of their design process.
Before any selection of tools and computations of tool paths can be performed, the orientation of the part relative to the mold must be determined. While this could be performed manually by an experienced moldmaker, the preferred automated method was described earlier with reference to automatic �straight pull� manufacturability identification 40 as one of the acceptability criteria.
The CAD file 32 is assessed to automatically determine all edge surfaces which extend parallel to the straight-pull z-direction. For a moment, the parallel edge surfaces are excluded from the determination, as determining the parting line for the other portions of the part 10 is relatively easy. If an edge surface does not extend parallel to the straight-pull z-direction, then the parting line is at the height of the greatest areal extent of the part. Thus, the parting line/shutoff surface portion 74 of the tool selection and tool path computation module 68 automatically defines parting line segments which extend along the uniquely (non z-direction) extending greatest periphery of the part 10. If an edge surface does not extend parallel to the straight-pull z-direction, then the parting line is at the height of the greatest areal extent of the part. The cam 10 has no uniquely (non z-direction) extending periphery of the part, as the part outline flange 12, the circular opening 14, the two rotation pins 16, the non-circular opening 18, the notch 20, the 60� corner hole 24, the 30� corner hole 26, and the partial web 28 all provide edge surfaces which extend in the z-direction.
Shutoff surfaces within the mold are automatically determined in much the same way. The shutoff surfaces are those surfaces where the mold halves will contact each other when the mold is closed. First, the shutoff surfaces by definition include the parting line. If the parting line is planar, with no holes inside the part, the shutoff surface is defined to be coplanar with the parting line. In the case of the cam 10, the circular opening 14 and the non-circular opening 18 also represent areas of contact between the shutoff surfaces for the two parts of the mold. The parting line around the part outline flange 12, the parting line around the circular opening 14 and the parting line around the non-circular opening 18 can each be planar. The shutoff surface at the circular opening 14 can be planar, as can the shutoff surface at the non-circular opening 18. Defining the shutoff surfaces can be very complex in the case of a part with a highly articulated parting line and complex internal telescoping shutoffs. Beyond considering the parting line, the preferred embodiment 74 optimizes the selection of the shutoff surfaces. To the extent possible, the shut-off surfaces should be designed to be no steeper than 5-10 degrees. While a straight-line routine could be used, the preferred embodiment uses a three-dimensional smoothing routine.
The preferred smoothing routines create a parting line shutoff surface which is mathematically complex, and virtually impossible to hand machine. However, the complex surface is mathematically defined, and translated into CNC machining instructions. In the CNC machining instructions, the mathematical complexity of the curve is not particularly important. What is important in the CNC machining instructions is that the shut off surfaces are as smooth as possible, and thus can be formed with the largest tool(s) possible and at the fastest material removal rates. Automatic selection 74 of the parting line and corresponding shutoff surfaces thus provides for: (a) a fast assessment of acceptability criterion 42; (b) a fast quotation 66; (c) a fast generation of CNC machining instructions 76; and (d) a fast CNC machining operation 78 to fabricate the mold.
As noted earlier, the preferred tools used in the CNC machining process most commonly include standard-sized endmills. For instance, much of the surface profile for the cavity for the cam 10 can be efficiently machined with the � endmill 50. FIG. 7 is a �screen-shot� representing a portion of an optimized tool path 82 generated so as much of the cavity 84 as possible for the cam 10 can be machined by CNC machining with the � endmill 50.
Once the parting line and shutoff surfaces 98 have been defined (step 74), the mold layout has been specified 72, the tools have been selected 68, and the tool paths for the cavity 84 have been computed 80, the preferred method includes a CNC instruction generation module 100 which generates the detailed instructions 76 that will be used by the CNC milling equipment to cut the mold 86 from a raw block of aluminum. The CNC instruction generation module 100 generates a series of CNC machining instructions 76 corresponding to machining the mold 86 with the selected tools and computed machining actions. For instance, the CNC instruction generation module 100 may generate a �g-code� program containing a set of instructions 76 for CNC milling machines. If desired, the shape of the cavity 84 as machined in the mold block can be visualized with one of the g-code viewers developed for up-front visual verification of machining under the control of g-code programs, and the shape of the cavity 84 can be visually compared with drawings of the part 10. CNC machining instructions 76 are generated to machine ejector pin locations 90, sprues 96, runners 93, gates 94 etc. into the mold blocks.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. As one example, while the present invention has been described with relation to various patentable features being preformed in separately named modules, computer programmers will recognize many equivalent options exist for naming of the modules and organization of the programming features. As another example, while the present invention as described is constrained to require straight-pull, two-piece molds, enhancements may be made to support side actions in the mold. Permitting side action molds will overcome the current requirement that parts be producible in simple straight-pull molds. Side action molds allow molding parts with undercut faces�faces that cannot be placed entirely in one subset because they have areas that need machining from opposite directions. Permitting side action molds will thus increase the percentage of parts that are eligible for the automated process.
Patent CitationsCited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS4641270Apr 24, 1985Feb 3, 1987La Telemecanique ElectriqueProcess for manufacturing a mold using three-dimensional computer modellingUS5189626Mar 27, 1991Feb 23, 1993Caterpillar Inc.Automatic generation of a set of contiguous surface patches on a computer modeled solidUS5458825Oct 14, 1994Oct 17, 1995Hoover Universal, Inc.Utilization of blow molding tooling manufactured by sterolithography for rapid container prototypingUS5641448Mar 11, 1996Jun 24, 1997National Research Council Of CanadaMethod of producing plastic injection molds for prototype partsUS5838328Jun 11, 1993Nov 17, 1998Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod for generating graphical models and computer aided design systemUS6096088Sep 17, 1997Aug 1, 2000Moldflow Pty LtdMethod for modelling three dimension objects and simulation of fluid flowUS6116888Jul 29, 1998Sep 12, 2000Owens-Brockway Plastic Products Inc.Prototype mold for blow-molding hollow plastic containers and method of making sameUS6173210 *Oct 27, 1998Jan 9, 2001Northeast Equipment, Inc.Apparatus and method for selecting a mechanical sealUS6175422Jul 31, 1992Jan 16, 2001Texas Instruments IncorporatedMethod and apparatus for the computer-controlled manufacture of three-dimensional objects from computer dataUS6219055 *Jan 19, 1999Apr 17, 2001Solidworks CorporationComputer based forming toolUS6675055 *Jun 16, 2000Jan 6, 2004Mold Masters Ltd.Method and apparatus for an automated injection molding configuring and manufacturing system* Cited by examinerNon-Patent CitationsReference1The Protomold Company, Inc./Protomold Pamphlet, 2 pages.Referenced byCiting PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS7089082Apr 25, 2005Aug 8, 2006The Protomold Company, Inc.Automated multi-customer moldingUS7123986Mar 7, 2005Oct 17, 2006The Protomold Company, Inc.Family moldingUS7270447 *May 23, 2005Sep 18, 2007Ge SecurityUniform luminance and color mixing lens for LED deviceUS7299101 *Mar 6, 2006Nov 20, 2007The Protomold Company, Inc.Manipulatable model for communicating manufacturing issues of a custom partUS7333868 *May 9, 2006Feb 19, 2008Tramco, Inc.Systems and methods for designing and manufacturing engineered objectsUS7567849Feb 19, 2008Jul 28, 2009Tramco, Inc.Systems and methods for designing and manufacturing engineered objectsUS7603191Feb 16, 2006Oct 13, 2009IdealabSystem and method for design of a componentUS7630783Jan 24, 2006Dec 8, 2009Proto Labs, Inc.Communicating mold/part manufacturability issuesUS7723613Nov 30, 2007May 25, 2010Motorola, Inc.Angled double-wall junctionUS7840443 *Oct 25, 2006Nov 23, 2010Proto Labs, Inc.Automated quoting of CNC machined custom molds and/or custom partsUS8014889Oct 13, 2005Sep 6, 2011Stratasys, Inc.Transactional method for building three-dimensional objectsUS8027744Jul 28, 2009Sep 27, 2011Tramco, Inc.Systems and methods for designing and manufacturing engineered objectsUS8075300Jun 30, 2008Dec 13, 2011Stratasys, Inc.Vapor smoothing surface finishing systemUS8140401Jan 15, 2009Mar 20, 2012Proto Labs, Inc.Automated quoting of molds and parts from customer CAD file part dataUS8219230Jun 9, 2010Jul 10, 2012Geometric LimitedManufacturability evaluation of injection molded plastic models using a CAD based DFX evaluation systemUS8239284Oct 12, 2010Aug 7, 2012Proto Labs, Inc.Automated quoting of CNC machined custom partsUS8295971Sep 2, 2009Oct 23, 2012Proto Labs, Inc.Computer assisted determination of tapped threads from CAD fileUS8463422 *Jun 26, 2007Jun 11, 2013Kraussmaffei Technologies GmbhApparatus and method for user-specific monitoring and control of productionUS20100065979 *Jun 26, 2007Mar 18, 2010Kraussmaffei Technologies GmbhApparatus and method for user-specific monitoring and control of productionDE112007002533T5Oct 24, 2007Nov 19, 2009Proto Labs, Inc., Maple PlainAutomatische Gesamtprofilbearbeitung von TeilenWO2006096790A2 *Mar 7, 2006Sep 14, 2006Kubicek Mark RFamily moldingWO2008052090A2 *Oct 24, 2007May 2, 2008Mark R KubicekAutomated quoting of cnc machined custom partsWO2009152235A1 *Jun 10, 2009Dec 17, 2009Proto Labs, Inc.Cnc instructions for solidification fixturing of parts* Cited by examinerClassifications U.S. Classification700/200, 345/420, 700/197, 264/401, 700/97International ClassificationB22C19/04, B29C33/38, G06Q30/00Cooperative ClassificationG06Q30/06, B22C19/04, B29C33/3835European ClassificationG06Q30/06, B29C33/38F, B22C19/04Legal EventsDateCodeEventDescriptionApr 17, 2012FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 8Aug 29, 2008ASAssignmentOwner name: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MINNESOTAFree format text: SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:PROTO LABS, INC.;REEL/FRAME:021450/0946Effective date: 20080827May 8, 2008FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 4Apr 30, 2008ASAssignmentOwner name: PROTO LABS, INC., MINNESOTAFree format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:THE PROTOMOLD COMPANY, INC.;REEL/FRAME:020876/0458Effective date: 20070508Dec 19, 2002ASAssignmentOwner name: PROTOMOLD COMPANY, INC., THE, MINNESOTAFree format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:LUKIS, LAWRENCE J.;DREIZIN, YURI A.;GILBERT, JOHN M.;REEL/FRAME:013615/0654Effective date: 20021209Owner name: PROTOMOLD COMPANY, INC., THE 1757 HALGREN ROADMAPLFree format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:LUKIS, LAWRENCE J. /AR;REEL/FRAME:013615/0654RotateOriginal ImageGoogle Home - Sitemap - USPTO Bulk Downloads - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - About Google Patents - Send FeedbackData provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services©2012 Google