IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,189,361
Granted Patent B2
US 12,189,361 · App. 18/318,791 · Granted Jan 7, 2025

Methods and apparatus for machine learning predictions of manufacturing processes

Inventors: Valerie R. Coffman (Washington, DC); Mark Wicks (Alexandria, VA); Daniel Wheeler (Darnestown, MD)
Assignee: XOMETRY, INC.
G05B19/4097G06N3/126G06N7/01G06N20/00G06N20/20G05B2219/35134G05B2219/35204G06N3/045G06N5/04
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,189,361
App. No.
18/318,791
Granted
Jan 7, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

The subject technology is related to methods and apparatus for training a set of regression machine learning models with a training set to produce a set of predictive values for a pending manufacturing request, the training set including data extracted from a set of manufacturing transactions submitted by a set of entities of a supply chain. A multi-objective optimization model is implemented to (1) receive an input including the set of predictive values and a set of features of a physical object, and (2) generate an output with a set of attributes associated with a manufacture of the physical object in response to receiving the input, the output complying with a multi-objective condition satisfied in the multi-objective optimization model.

Claims (26)

1. One or more non-transitory computer memory devices storing software instruction for controlling one or more processors to provide:

a user interface configured to receive, at the one or more processors, a manufacturing process request, wherein the manufacturing process request includes a digital model representative of a physical object; and

a predictive engine configured to generate at least one predictive value associated with the manufacturing process request, wherein the predictive engine is configured based at least in part upon the digital model or upon one or more features derived from the digital model, and based at least in part upon one or more machine learning models; and

wherein the user interface is also configured to provide a prediction report associated with manufacturing the physical object, the prediction report including information based upon the at least one predictive value.

2. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the one or more features include (i) values corresponding to surface orientations associated with the physical object and (ii) values corresponding to non-planar surface areas associated with the physical object.

3. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 2 , wherein the one or more features further include one or more of the following: (iii) values corresponding to a volume of the physical object, (iv) values corresponding to a surface area of the physical object, (v) values corresponding to convex hull volume of the physical object, and (vi) values corresponding to length, width and height of a prism enclosing the physical object.

4. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein at least one of the machine learning models is trained using unsupervised machine learning.

5. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein at least one of the machine learning models is trained with an incomplete training set.

6. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive engine also produces a deterministic property and the prediction report also includes information based upon the deterministic property.

7. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein information based upon the predictive value includes probabilities associated with entities of a supply chain.

8. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive engine further takes as input from the manufacturing process request, one or more of (a) a number of requested parts, (b) previous manufacturing transactions committed by a requesting entity, or (c) time when a request is expected to be fulfilled.

9. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive engine produces the at least one predictive value based further upon one or more candidate shape distributions retrieved as a pre-classifier of physical object shape.

10. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein at least one of the machine learning models is trained using unsupervised machine learning trained with an incomplete training set.

11. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive value is in the form of a probability distribution function.

12. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive value includes a probability that a request will be accepted by one or more entities of a supply chain.

13. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the predictive value includes a probability that a manufacturing process will be authorized by a requester entity.

14. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the manufacturing process request further includes, and the predictive engine further takes as input from the manufacturing process request, one or more of (a) a requested fabrication material, (b) a requested surface finish, or (c) a requested tolerance.

15. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the information based upon the at least one predictive value in the prediction report includes cost information.

16. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the information based upon the at least one predictive value in the prediction report includes a quote to manufacture one or more of the physical object.

17. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the prediction report is provided by the user interface in near real-time upon receiving the manufacturing process request by the user interface.

18. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the software instruction further provide an object analysis engine that generates from the digital model, a set of features associated with the physical object corresponding to at least one of (a) a discretized version of the digital model or (b) a point cloud processing of the digital model.

19. The one or more non-transitory computer memory devices of claim 1 , wherein the information complies with a multi-objective condition satisfied in a multi-objective optimization model.

20. One or more non-transitory computer memory devices storing software instruction for controlling one or more processors to provide:

a user interface configured to receive, at the one or more processors, a manufacturing process request, wherein the manufacturing process request includes a digital model representative of a physical object; and

a predictive engine configured to generate at least one predictive value associated with the manufacturing process request, wherein the predictive engine is configured based at least in part upon the digital model or one or more features derived from the digital model, and based at least in part upon one or more regression machine learning models; and

wherein the user interface is also configured to provide a prediction report associated with manufacturing the physical object, the prediction report including manufacturing cost information based upon the at least one predictive value.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 17, 2023
From: COFFMAN, VALERIE R.; WICKS, MARK; WHEELER, DANIEL
To: XOMETRY, INC.
Reel/Frame 063667/0187 →
Continuity (5)
Continuation 17398409 · Aug 10, 2021
Continuation 16454756 · Jun 27, 2019
Continuation 16113835 · Aug 27, 2018
Continuation 15721208 · Sep 29, 2017
Related Publication 20230288907A1 · Sep 14, 2023
References Cited (71)
US 6701200B1 · Lukis et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6836699B2 · Lukis et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6937966B1 · Hellerstein · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 7089082B1 · Lukis et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 7305367B1 · Hollis et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7496528B2 · Lukis et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7590466B2 · Lukis et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7630783B2 · Walls-Manning et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7735033B2 · Zhang et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7840443B2 · Lukis et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 8140401B2 · Lukis et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8239284B2 · Lukis et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8560092B2 · Zheng et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8601483B2 · He et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 9141743B1 · McCracken · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9367063B2 · Herrman et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9441936B2 · Pinkston et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 10061300B1 · Coffman · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10073439B1 · Jacobs, II · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10274933B2 · Coffman · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10281902B2 · Coffman · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10338565B1 · Coffman · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10545481B2 · Jacobs, II · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10558195B2 · Coffman · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10712727B2 · Coffman · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11086292B2 · Coffman · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11347201B2 · Coffman · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11693388B2 · Coffman · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20030083757A1 · Card · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 20060224325A1 · Conway et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070038531A1 · Lukis et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070112526A1 · Chen · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20080183446A1 · Hansen · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080231307A1 · Bickford · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20090228846A1 · McConaghy · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20090307638A1 · McConaghy · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20140125663A1 · Zhang · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150127480A1 · Herrman et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150317589A1 · Anderson · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160033251A1 · Pinkston et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160140452A1 · Garcia Sedano et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160259323A1 · Herrman et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160370790A1 · Pinkston et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170293269A1 · Sharma · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180046926A1 · Achin · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180120813A1 · Coffman et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190202133A1 · Jacobs, II · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20210365003A1 · Coffman · 2021 [cited by examiner]
WO WO2015058147A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2015058152A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2016018717A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report dated Mar. 14, 2018 for European Application No. 17199603.6, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
IP, C. Y. & Regli, W. C., “A 3D object classifier for discriminating manufacturing processes,” Computers and Graphics, vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 903-916 (2006). [cited by applicant]
Loyer, J.-L. et al., “Comparison of Machine Learning methods applied to the estimation of manufacturing cost of jet engine components,” Int. J. Production Economics, vol. 178, pp. 109-119 (2016). [cited by applicant]
Serrat, J. et al., “Cost estimation of custom hoses from STL files and CAD drawings,” Computers in Industry, vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 299-309 (2013). [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 12, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/721,208, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 21, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/340,338, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 4, 2018 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/113,835, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Shtub et al.; “A neural-network-based approach for estimating the cost of assembly systems”; Int'l Journal of Production Economics; vol. 32; 1993; p. 189-207. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al.; “A Neural Network Approach for Early Cost Estimation of Packaging Products” Computers in Industrial Engineering; vol. 34; 1998; p. 433-450. [cited by applicant]
Boothroyd et al.; “Approximate Cost Estimates for Typical Turned Parts”; Journal of Manufacturing Systems; vol. 8; 1989; p. 185-193. [cited by applicant]
Feng et al.; “Cost evaluation in design with form features”; Computer-Aided Design; vol. 28; 1996; p. 879-885. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al.; “Cost model development using artificial neural networks”; Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology; vol. 73; 2001; p. 536-541. [cited by applicant]
Joshi et al.; “Graph-based heuristics for recognition of machined features from a 3D solid model”; Computer-Aided Design; vol. 20; 1988; p. 58-66. [cited by applicant]
JJ Shah; Assessment of features technology; Computer-Aided Design; vol. 23; Jun. 1991; p. 331-343. [cited by applicant]
Henderson, Mark R.; “Extraction of Feature Information From Three-Dimensional CAD Data”; Thesis; Purdue University; 1984; 159 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kung, Hsiang-Kuan; “An Investigation Into the Development of Process Plans From Solid Geometric Modeling Representation”; Thesis; Oklahoma State University; 1984; 274 pages. [cited by applicant]
Yao et al.; “A Geometric Algorithm for Finding the Largest Milling Cutter”; Journal of Manufacturing Processes; vol. 3; 2001; 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Vandenbrande et al.; “Spatial Reasoning for the Automatic Recognition of Machinable Features in Solid Models”; IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence; vol. 15; Dec. 1993; p. 1269-1285. [cited by applicant]
De la Garza et al.; “Neural networks versus parameter-based applications in cost estimating”; Cost Engineering; vol. 37; Feb. 1995; p. 14-18. [cited by applicant]
Kyprianou LK; “Shape classification in computer-aided design”; Thesis; University of Cambridge; 1982; (abstract only). [cited by applicant]