Development and Application of a Dual-Robot Fabrication System in Figuring of a 2.4 m × 4.58 m CFRP Antenna Reflector Surface^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have done a good job in developing such specific dual robot system, that is very good. However, in terms of creative/scientific writing, the manuscript needs to be improved and enhanced, mandatorily; in revising;

1. what are the technical challenges?
2. how these challenges were resolved?
3. how effective or success?

 

Author Response

Comments 1: You have done a good job in developing such specific dual robot system, that is very good. However, in terms of creative/scientific writing, the manuscript needs to be improved and enhanced, mandatorily; in revising;

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. In response to the reviewer's feedback, we have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript and carried out comprehensive language polishing to enhance the quality of scientific writing. For example, we edited the entire paragraph in line 212 of the updated manuscript:

Before revision:

“When prepare the processing program, it is essential to refer to a specific point of the end effector to plan and generate the tool path. Usually the point located at the bottom center of the tool and called Tool Center Point (TCP). TCP is always taken as origin of the Tool Control Frame (TCF). Because the tool was an additional apparatus attached to the robot, it could be regarded as an extension of the flange as shown in Figure 4. This means that TCF is isolated from the robot, and it is not strictly aligned with the flange frame {F}. It is necessary to determine TCF under the base frame.. before determining the TCP. Accuracy of TCP and TCF will affect the surface figuring accuracy which is stringent required in figuring the CFRP antenna reflector.”

After revision:

“When preparing the processing program, it is essential to refer to a specific point on the end effector to plan and generate the tool path. The point is usually located at the bottom center of the tool and is called the Tool Center Point (TCP). TCP is always taken as the origin of the Tool Control Frame (TCF). Since the tool is an additional apparatus attached to the robot, it can be considered an extension of the flange, as shown in Figure 4. This implies that the TCF is isolated from the robot and is not strictly aligned with the flange frame {F}. It is necessary to determine the TCF under the base frame before determining the TCP. The accuracy of the TCP and TCF will impact the surface accuracy, which is stringently required in figuring of the CFRP antenna reflector. "

 

Comments 2: 1.what are the technical challenges?

Response 2: We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback.

Technical Challenge 1: The dimensions of the CFRP antenna reflector are 2400m × 4580mm, with a thickness of approximately 70mm. The structure utilizes a honeycomb core, giving the workpiece an extremely high degree of lightweight characteristics. The entire carbon fiber antenna weighs only 186kg and features a highly deformable structure with low rigidity. If the support and assembly are unstable, significant deformation is likely to occur, preventing it from meeting the required surface shape specifications.

Technical Challenge 2: Conventional machining typically aims for the smallest possible surface roughness. However, due to the application requirements of this antenna, the surface roughness must be maintained within the range of 400nm-500nm. Additionally, CFRP material exhibits significant differences in elastic modulus between the Z direction and the XY directions, requiring the adoption of appropriate machining processes to achieve the desired surface roughness.

 

According to the reviewer’s comments, we have made targeted revisions and added two highlighted paragraphs in the introduction of the updated manuscript to further elaborate on and clarify some of the technical challenges encountered in this research. (Lines 45-72 and Lines 110-128)

 

Comments 3: 2. how these challenges were resolved?

Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments.

Solution to Technical Challenge 1: Eighteen support points were used to prevent excessive gravitational deformation caused by too few support points. Based on the application requirements, the support force at each of these 18 points was strictly controlled to match the theoretical values. This ensured that the support system met the final usage state requirements, with deformation not exceeding 5μm, thereby achieving the desired surface shape processing accuracy.

Solution to Technical Challenge 2: Through experimental research, appropriate abrasive types and grain sizes were selected, ultimately fulfilling the processing requirement for a surface roughness range of 400-500nm.

The solutions to these two challenges are detailed in the updated manuscript, with supporting experimental data provided.

 

Comments 4: 3.how effective or success?

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments.

This paper developed a dual-robot machining approach, which incorporates machining space planning and introduces a novel robot TCP calibration method, providing crucial technical support to enhance machining accuracy. Additionally, by analyzing the characteristics of the CFRP antenna’s reflective surface, an 18-point support system with precisely adjustable support forces was employed, achieving a deformation of approximately 4.22μm. This ensured that the support system met the final usage state requirements, with deformation not exceeding 5μm, alongside a machining process designed to maintain a specified surface roughness range. This approach successfully achieved micron-level surface shape accuracy and controlled surface roughness in the manufacturing of large-sized, weak-rigidity carbon fiber workpieces, providing essential manufacturing methods and technical support for future large-scale CFRP processing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wrote an article entitled: Development and application of a dual-robot fabrication system in figuring of a 2.4m×4.58m CFRP antenna reflector surface. The article cites 34 sources, which is a sufficient amount for an article of this size. Furthermore, the article uses 19 images and 3 tables, also sufficient. As for the formal requirements, they are met. However, there are a few comments for improving this article:
- I would definitely like a better description of the SIAI robot, after all, it is the main star of the article.
- some images such as 3, 17 would like to be enlarged, nothing can be seen from them.
- check the mathematical notations throughout the text, there are several minor errors that reduce the readability of the article
- I am not a native speaker, but I discovered a few errors in English
The article will be nice after these changes. I like this application of robotics in production.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Im not native speaker, but any changes must be.

Author Response

Comments 1: - I would definitely like a better description of the SIAI robot, after all, it is the main star of the article.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. To provide a clearer description of the robot's layout, we have added relevant descriptive content in the updated manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted section in lines 184-187 of the updated manuscript. Thank you very much.

 

Comments 2: - some images such as 3, 17 would like to be enlarged, nothing can be seen from them star of the article.

Response 2: We appreciate the valuable suggestion. Therefore, we have revised the images (Figures 3 and 17) and enlarged them to make them much clearer.Please find them in the updated manuscript.

 

Comments 3: - check the mathematical notations throughout the text, there are several minor errors that reduce the readability of the article.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your suggestion. We have reviewed and revised the mathematical notations throughout the text to improve the readability of the article.

 

 

Comments 4: - I am not a native speaker, but I discovered a few errors in English.

Response 4:We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have thoroughly revised and refined the manuscript, correcting several English errors. For example:

The sentence "Wan et al proposed a figuring path planning method which could adaptive to the surface form accuracy for RSF." has been revised to "Wan et al. proposed a figuring path planning method that could adapt to the surface form accuracy for RSF."

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The [paper presents the development of a dual -robot fabrication system in figuring of a CFRP antenna reflector surface.

The paper is well written and structured, however there re some aspects that may improve the quality of the presentation :

Please revise the grammar and the punctuation throughout the paper:

Line 68:”which could adaptive”

Line 99 : “made CFPR”

Line 162: “when prepare the processing program”

Punctuation in line 168.

Some sentences need rephrasing:

Line 94:”Finally, some useful results are summarized” does not sound scientifically

Line 130: “The robot base frame is located at its base...”

What does fz term from eq 1 mean?

Please use a proper equation editor or arrange the equations according to template (Lines 343-345, eq (10) line 392).

The results are interesting, but the authors should provide a comparison between their approach and similar results related to figuring  antenna surface.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please revise the grammar and the punctuation throughout the paper:

Line 68:”which could adaptive”

Line 99 : “made CFPR”

Line 162: “when prepare the processing program”

Punctuation in line 168.

Some sentences need rephrasing:

Line 94:”Finally, some useful results are summarized” does not sound scientifically

Line 130: “The robot base frame is located at its base...”

Author Response

Comments 1: Please revise the grammar and the punctuation throughout the paper:

Line 68:”which could adaptive”

Line 99 : “made CFPR”

Line 162: “when prepare the processing program”

Punctuation in line 168.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We have made comprehensive revisions and grammar corrections throughout the manuscript to improve its readability, and the changes are highlighted in the updated manuscript. The specific changes are as follows:

 

Line 68: “which could adaptive” has been revised to “could adapt to” in line 93 of the updated manuscript.

Line 99: “made CFPR” has been revised to “made of CFRP” in line 154 of the updated manuscript.

Line 162: “when prepare the processing program” has been revised to “When preparing the processing program” in line 222 of the updated manuscript.

The punctuation in Line 168: “It is necessary to determine TCF under the base frame..” has been revised to “It is necessary to determine the TCF under the base frame before determining the TCP.” in line 228 of the updated manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Some sentences need rephrasing:

Line 94:”Finally, some useful results are summarized” does not sound scientifically

Line 130: “The robot base frame is located at its base...”

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comments regarding the sentence structure. In response to these suggestions, we have revised the relevant paragraphs and updated the manuscript accordingly. The changes have been highlighted for your reference. Please refer to the paragraph starting at line 134 and in the updated manuscript. Since the sentence 'The robot base frame is located at its base...' does not affect the content of the paper, it has been removed.

 

Comments 3: What does fz term from eq 1 mean?

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for the thorough review of the manuscript. Since

f and z represent two variables, in order to avoid any potential ambiguity, we have revised Equation 1 in the manuscript. Please refer to the updated version of the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Please use a proper equation editor or arrange the equations according to template (Lines 343-345, eq (10) line 392).

Response 4: In response to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have revised the formulas in the manuscript and rearranged them to comply with the template requirements. (Lines 412-417, eq (13) line 474).

 

Comments 5: The results are interesting, but the authors should provide a comparison between their approach and similar results related to figuring antenna surface.

Response 5: In response to these suggestions, we have conducted relevant research and incorporated the results into the introduction to emphasize the current machining accuracy and the significance of the research presented in this manuscript. (Lines 59-68)

 

Comments 6：Comments on the Quality of English Language

1）Please revise the grammar and the punctuation throughout the paper:

Line 68:”which could adaptive”

Line 99 : “made CFPR”

Line 162: “when prepare the processing program”

Punctuation in line 168.

2）Some sentences need rephrasing:

Line 94:”Finally, some useful results are summarized” does not sound scientifically

Line 130: “The robot base frame is located at its base...”

Response 5：We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have thoroughly revised and refined the manuscript, including correcting the grammar, punctuation, and rephrasing several sentences. Please refer to Responses 2 and 3 for further details.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the paper is written fairly well and is sound technically, but there are some points I would make that may improve the manuscript. I have a few comments:

1/ The abstract can be improved by adding some quantitative results.

2/ The motivation of the manuscript must be clearly pointed out in the introduction section.

3/ The paper lacks the paper organization that readers the paper content from the introduction section.

4/ Please specify which sections discuss each of the contributions to ensure cohesiveness throughout the manuscript.

5/ The authors should explain the situation of the market on dual-robot fabrication system and the difference of the proposed system with the commercialized products. 

6/ The current literature review is well done, but it can be improved further. The introduction should clearly present the difference between the applied method and other methods found in the literature. The authors could enhance the reference section by discussing new works related to the system. For example, simulation of residual stress and distortion evolution in dual-robot collaborative wire-arc additive manufactured Al-Cu alloys, prescribed performance control of a human-following surveillance robot with incomplete observation.

7/ In the manuscript, the reviewer thinks that a section about the kinematics and kinetics of robot should be added to make the problem clearer. All assumptions and physical constraints should be provided. How many degrees of freedom DOF is applied in the robot system?

8/ Perhaps the biggest problem with the article is that it is not considered a dynamic model for its design and improvement. It is something much more complex due to the optimization of non-linear behavior.

9/ The authors use optimization techniques for the design of such a system, maximizing the output force, and the capacity of the robot. The authors present the forward and reverse kinematics analyses, both required for the operation of the manipulator.

10/ Detailed implementation information should be provided (hardware, software, configuration, settings). A detailed discussion of hardware and software applied to the system should be mentioned. Provide specifications of the hardware and software used for simulation of the approach.

11/ It is better to use a quantitative analysis to further verify the proposed method. So, the results should be numerically tabulated.

12/ The reviewers recommend that more future work should be added to Conclusion Section.

13/ The manuscript writing can be further polished with professional English. The manuscript can be thoroughly revised for grammar check.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can be thoroughly revised for grammar check.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract can be improved by adding some quantitative results.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In response to the suggestions, we have incorporated some numerical results into the abstract and highlighted the updated content in the revised manuscript. The added content is as follows:

“The final results achieved the required surface figure accuracies for areas ≤φ1750mm, ≤φ2400mm, and the whole surface were improved to 13.5μm RMS, 23.4μm RMS, and 45.8μm RMS, respec-tively.”

 

Comments 2: The motivation of the manuscript must be clearly pointed out in the introduction section.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, we have rewritten the introduction to emphasize the motivation and have highlighted the updated content in the revised manuscript (Lines 45-72 and 110-128). The added content is as follows:

“The increase in the aperture size of optical elements and antenna reflectors inevitably leads to an increase in weight. Consequently, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), known for its lightweight, high-strength, and corrosion-resistant properties, has become the material of choice for manufacturing antenna reflectors, garnering considerable atten-tion from researchers[7, 8]. To further reduce weight, CFRP components often employ honeycomb sandwich structures, combined with extremely low thickness-to-diameter ratios, which significantly reduce the overall rigidity of the workpiece, making it prone to deformation. Due to the high hardness and high modulus of CFRP, along with the viscoelastic properties of its surface resin, traditional machining methods such as tool cutting and bonded abrasive processing are prone to issues such as tool clogging, wear, and resin peeling[9]. Furthermore, the resin matrix's low glass transition temperature requires strict control of the temperature rise in the processing area[10] As the size of the components increases, the problems of tool damage and insufficient tool life become more pronounced, resulting in greater safety risks and challenges in maintaining manufacturing precision.

Deformation presents another significant challenge in the development of CFRP an-tenna reflectors. The extent of deformation is influenced by various factors, including self-weight, the sandwich honeycomb layout, panel thickness, support stability, and en-vironmental conditions. It is, however, indisputable that as the antenna size increases, the likelihood of deformation also increases [11], thereby significantly complicating the man-ufacturing process of large-diameter antenna reflectors. Consequently, most applications utilize sub-aperture stitching techniques to construct large-diameter antenna reflectors [12] While CFRP reflectors with precision levels of up to 10 microns have been achieved for meter-scale antennas [13], reports on the processing accuracy of monolithic carbon fiber antennas exceeding 4 meters in size remain rare.

Therefore, addressing the ultra-precision manufacturing of CFRP antenna reflectors under the unique constraints of large aperture, low rigidity, and material-specific proper-ties has become a key technological challenge restricting the performance of application systems.”

 

“ In the context of CFRP antenna reflectors' surface quality, due to the high thermal control performance requirements of the application system, surface roughness is not required to be minimized as in conventional components. Instead, the specification calls for surface roughness to be controlled within the range of 400 nm to 500 nm, utilizing localized roughness machining. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that the surface material does not undergo performance degradation due to temperature-induced changes during processing.To address these challenges, this study proposes the use of a small tool machining technique using water-based free abrasives for the processing of CFRP antenna reflectors. In this technique, the free abrasives are dispersed in a water-based coolant envi-ronment, covering the machining area throughout the process, while the coolant is continuously replenished. The abrasives are dynamically refreshed between the tool and the workpiece surface, which facilitates efficient material removal.This method's key advantage in CFRP machining is its ability to provide real-time replenishment of abrasives during the process, which resolves common issues such as tool wear and clogging that are typical in conventional cutting operations. Additionally, the water-based free abrasives provide simultaneous cooling to the workpiece surface, preventing material property degradation due to surface temperature rise during machining. As such, this technique is highly effective for both ultra-precision shaping and roughness correction of CFRP materials.”

 

Comments 3: The paper lacks the paper organization that readers the paper content from the introduction section.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, we have rewritten the introduction to better reflect the content and organization of the paper, and have highlighted the updated sections in the revised manuscript. (Lines 134-149). The added content is as follows:

“Firstly, the characteristics of the large-diameter CFRP workpiece to be processed were pre-sented. Secondly, the characteristics of the self-developed robot were described in brief, followed by the construction of its kinematic analysis model to study its motion accuracy. The calibration methods for the Tool Center Frame (TCF) and Tool Center Point (TCP) were proposed, and the motion workspace of a single robot was analyzed. This analysis pro-vided the theoretical model for the machining space, which is essential for the subsequent construction of a dual-robot multi-station platform.Next, based on the workspace analysis of the multi-station robots, a dual-robot multi-station machining device was developed. A whiffletree support mechanism was introduced to ensure reliable and stable support ac-curacy. After analyzing the robot operation accuracy under different trajectories, the tra-jectory offering the highest precision was identified as the optimal machining trajecto-ry.Further optimization of process parameters and tools was conducted to select the ap-propriate abrasives for localized roughness processing, as well as flexible tools that could achieve high surface adaptability for CFRP antenna reflector machining.Finally, high-precision surface shaping of the single large-diameter, weak-rigidity CFRP antenna reflector was successfully achieved.”

 

Comments 4: Please specify which sections discuss each of the contributions to ensure cohesiveness throughout the manuscript.

Response 4: In response to the comment, we have added relevant sections to the manuscript to address the contributions more clearly. The specific sections discussing each of the contributions are as follows:

Lines 301-309: [In summary, this section develops a kinematic model of the robot to compare the ac-tual motion accuracy with theoretical predictions, thereby ensuring that the robot’s basic operational position accuracy satisfies the machining precision requirements. Addition-ally, an effective method for determining the robot's Tool Center Frame (TCF) and Tool Center Point (TCP) is proposed, which provides technical support for selecting tool ma-chining parameters in subsequent processes. Furthermore, based on the constructed mod-el, the workspace of a single robot is analyzed, offering both a theoretical foundation and computational model to support the optimization of robot and workstation layout in future planning.]

Lines 427-437: [The primary objective of this section is to perform an analysis of the robot's mul-ti-position processing space, utilizing the robot kinematic model developed in the previ-ous section and incorporating the dimensions of the CFRP carbon fiber reflector surface to be processed. Furthermore, a dual-robot, multi-position manufacturing layout has been implemented. Based on this, a high-precision support system was designed and fabricat-ed to meet the stringent accuracy requirements for large-diameter antennas, ensuring that the reflector surface deformation does not exceed 5 μm. Additionally, a comparison be-tween model predictions and experimental measurements was conducted to evaluate the operational accuracy of both the raster and spiral paths. The analysis reveals that the ras-ter path demonstrates superior operational accuracy. Consequently, the raster path was selected for the processing of the CFRP antenna reflector surface.]

Lines 503-506: [The figuring of a 2400mm * 4580mm CFRP antenna reflector was conducted using the previously constructed dual-robot multi-station machining platform, which incorpo-rates a high-precision 18-point support structure and employs optimized figuring paths and processing methods.]

We have ensured that these sections are well-integrated into the manuscript to maintain cohesiveness throughout.

 

Comments 5: The authors should explain the situation of the market on dual-robot fabrication system and the difference of the proposed system with the commercialized products.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The objective of this study is to investigate CFRP antennas using a self-developed robotic system. This research is the first to employ a self-developed dual-robot system to perform multi-position work for micron-level precision surface shaping of optoelectronic components. The primary goal is to validate the performance and accuracy of the self-developed robot under the conditions necessary for workpiece machining. Based on our team’s research, reports on the use of dual robots for CFRP processing are relatively rare.

 

Comments 6: The current literature review is well done, but it can be improved further. The introduction should clearly present the difference between the applied method and other methods found in the literature. The authors could enhance the reference section by discussing new works related to the system. For example, simulation of residual stress and distortion evolution in dual-robot collaborative wire-arc additive manufactured Al-Cu alloys, prescribed performance control of a human-following surveillance robot with incomplete observation.

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. In accordance with the reviewer’s advice, we have included a comparison of existing methods in the introduction, emphasizing the issues associated with conventional approaches and clearly outlining the advantages of the method used in this study. The specific details are as follows:

(Lines 110-128) “ In the context of CFRP antenna reflectors' surface quality, due to the high thermal control performance requirements of the application system, surface roughness is not required to be minimized as in conventional components. Instead, the specification calls for surface roughness to be controlled within the range of 400 nm to 500 nm, utilizing localized roughness machining. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that the surface material does not undergo performance degradation due to temperature-induced changes during processing.To address these challenges, this study proposes the use of a small tool machining technique using water-based free abrasives for the processing of CFRP antenna reflectors. In this technique, the free abrasives are dispersed in a water-based coolant envi-ronment, covering the machining area throughout the process, while the coolant is continuously replenished. The abrasives are dynamically refreshed between the tool and the workpiece surface, which facilitates efficient material removal.This method's key advantage in CFRP machining is its ability to provide real-time replenishment of abrasives during the process, which resolves common issues such as tool wear and clogging that are typical in conventional cutting operations. Additionally, the water-based free abrasives provide simultaneous cooling to the workpiece surface, preventing material property degradation due to surface temperature rise during machining. As such, this technique is highly effective for both ultra-precision shaping and roughness correction of CFRP materials.”

 

Comments 7: In the manuscript, the reviewer thinks that a section about the kinematics and kinetics of robot should be added to make the problem clearer. All assumptions and physical constraints should be provided. How many degrees of freedom DOF is applied in the robot system?

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. Our current focus is on verifying the basic accuracy of the model through motion precision. As shown by the results of this study, while there is some discrepancy between theory and practice, the accuracy is deemed acceptable for the motion range of 2400*4580mm. Nevertheless, we are refining the model to include more parameter conditions in order to achieve more precise simulations, which will be a key focus of our future work. A 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) robotic system was applied in our study. This updated description has been added to the revised manuscript, as indicated in lines 184-187.

 

Comments 8: Perhaps the biggest problem with the article is that it is not considered a dynamic model for its design and improvement. It is something much more complex due to the optimization of non-linear behavior.

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. Indeed, the dynamic model was not considered in this study. Due to our current focus on motion precision, the absence of the dynamic model factor has resulted in some discrepancies in the simulation. However, based on the current analysis, these discrepancies appear to be within an acceptable range. Moving forward, we will conduct research to develop the dynamic model as necessary, with the aim of achieving a more accurate motion precision simulation model and simulating nonlinear behaviors.

 

Comments 9: The authors use optimization techniques for the design of such a system, maximizing the output force, and the capacity of the robot. The authors present the forward and reverse kinematics analyses, both required for the operation of the manipulator.

Response 9: We agree with the reviewer’s comments.

 

Comments 10: Detailed implementation information should be provided (hardware, software, configuration, settings). A detailed discussion of hardware and software applied to the system should be mentioned. Provide specifications of the hardware and software used for simulation of the approach.

Response 10: The hardware specifications include an Intel Core i7-7700K processor and 8 GB of DDR4 RAM. On the software side, MATLAB was used, with the system configured to run simulations on a Windows 7 platform. These tools were chosen for their ability to accurately model and simulate the system, ensuring reliable results. Information regarding the software used can be found in lines 203-205 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 11: It is better to use a quantitative analysis to further verify the proposed method. So, the results should be numerically tabulated.

Response 11: Yes, we agree with the reviewer’s suggestion, and the in-depth validation of the proposed method is currently underway.

 

Comments 12: The reviewers recommend that more future work should be added to Conclusion Section.

Response 12: In the conclusion section, in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a discussion on future work, which has been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the updated manuscript for further details.

 

Comments 13: The manuscript writing can be further polished with professional English. The manuscript can be thoroughly revised for grammar check.

Response 13: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have thoroughly revised and refined the manuscript, including correcting the grammar, punctuation, and rephrasing sentences.

 

Comments 14: The manuscript can be thoroughly revised for grammar check.

Response 14: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have thoroughly revised and refined the manuscript, including correcting the grammar, punctuation, and rephrasing sentences.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I noted your response which is sound. However, the responses on comet 3 and comment 4 were not clearly shown in the revised version. Normally, I would demand their inclusion in the revised paper, but I would wave this, on this occasion, in considering the need of protecting company's intellectual rights.

I will recommend its publishing now.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments.