A Method for Generating Toolpaths in the Manufacturing of Orthosis Molds with a Five-Axis Computer Numerical Control Machine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

... see the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the cover letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a method for generation of 5-axis trajectory for manufacturing of orthosis molds. The paper presents a complete method from a 3d model to manufacturing a complete mold. The algorithm is well described and presented. I recomend that the paper is accepted after expanding some information (minor revision).

1) The authors reference the computation time: line 232-233 "computation process is not time intensive". There is no information on the actual computation time. There should be a detailed table which outlines the computation time of each stage of the algorithm.

2) How are the points interpolated to obtain the B-Spline toolpath. What methods are used? Please expand sub-chapter 2.5.

3) How are the final toolpath and tool orientation generated from the B-Spline

Author Response

Please see the cover letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a novel tool path generation method based on voxelization and the TSP algorithm, exhibiting innovative and practical value. However, improvements are needed in the depth of the introduction, thoroughness of algorithm details, completeness of experimental setups, depth of result discussions, and conciseness of conclusions. The authors are encouraged to meticulously revise and refine the manuscript based on the above suggestions to elevate its overall quality and academic standing.

1.         While the article briefly introduces the production background of orthoses and prostheses, it lacks a detailed review of existing tool path generation algorithms, particularly their limitations and shortcomings in handling complex geometries. It is recommended to augment this section to better highlight the novelty and necessity of the research presented in this manuscript.

2.         Although a new algorithm is proposed, the specific problems it addresses and the expected outcomes are not described with sufficient clarity. It is advisable to explicitly state the algorithm's goals, such as improving processing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing processing quality, etc., in the introduction.

3.         Although the process of voxelization is described, a detailed analysis of how different voxel sizes impact the results is lacking. It is suggested to include experimental data comparing processing effects across various voxel sizes to validate the algorithm's flexibility and adaptability.

4.         The specific implementation details of the 3D Region Growing algorithm are insufficient, such as the determination of seed points and the exact formula for similarity criteria. Adding this information would facilitate readers' comprehension of the algorithm.

5.         Critical information like the specific models of machines used and processing parameters are not detailed in the article. This information is crucial for validating the algorithm's practical effects. It is advised to supplement the experimental setup and data to enable other researchers to reproduce the experimental results.

6.         It is recommended to indicate the meanings of the different colors of curves used in Figures 3 to 7 either within the figures themselves or through explanations in the text. The various colors in these figures likely represent distinct stages, directions, or boundaries of processes such as the 'wave' propagation in voxelization

7.         While simulation and actual processing images are shown, there is a lack of quantitative comparative analysis of results. It is recommended to include comparison data for processing time, precision, surface roughness, and other quantifiable indicators to demonstrate the algorithm's advantages more intuitively.

8.         The discussion of experimental results is relatively simplistic, failing to delve into the algorithm's applicability and limitations under different conditions. It is suggested to expand the discussion to cover the algorithm's scope of application and performance analysis across varying degrees of geometric complexity.

9.         The conclusion should concisely summarize the manuscript's primary contributions and innovations while acknowledging limitations and future research directions. A more precise summary of the current research, coupled with targeted improvement suggestions and future work plans, is advised.

The article contains grammatical errors and formatting inconsistencies, such as improper punctuation and illogical paragraph divisions. Careful proofreading and polishing of the entire text are recommended to enhance readability and professionalism.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the cover letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the cover letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been greatly improved and now it is accepted.