DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on July 21, 2026. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,140,388 B1 Rassaian et al.
This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 27, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9, and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with no previous recitations. For example, claim 6, “the composite laminate” in Ln. 1, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the composite laminate”. For the purpose of examination, “the composite laminate” will be interpreted as “a composite laminate”. Claims 7-9, and 13-16 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, and 17 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claim 3 is directed to an aircraft and fall within the statutory category of machine; and claims 6-9 and 13-16 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Continuing the analysis for claims 1, 3, 5, 10-12, and 17-18 at Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of:
“deriving, on a basis of allowable strains corresponding to fiber orientation angles in a composite laminate having the fiber orientation angles, an allowable load region, the allowable load region representing in three dimensions a combination of an allowable X-direction load in a predetermined x direction in a plane orthogonal to a lamination direction in which layers of the composite laminate are laminated, an allowable Y-direction load in a y direction orthogonal to the x direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction, and an allowable shearing load in a shearing direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction”,
“the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure formed with a number of composite layers each having a fiber orientation among the fiber orientation angles, the number of composite layers in the basic laminated structure being set to a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure”,
“determining whether a working load acting on the composite laminate is included within the allowable load region”, and
“when it is determined that the working load is not included within the allowable load region, increasing the allowable load region via a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure” as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object can be conducted using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles (Pg. 10-13 contain the equations for solving the inverse laminate fiber stiffness matrix),
calculating a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object can be conducted using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles starting from a minimum ratio of the number of layers for any fiber orientation to the total number of layers in the composite laminate for a certain working load (Pg. 10-13 contain the equations for solving the inverse laminate fiber stiffness matrix),
calculating if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads, and
calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1: The limitations of
“deriving, on a basis of allowable strains corresponding to fiber orientation angles in a composite laminate having the fiber orientation angles, an allowable load region, the allowable load region representing in three dimensions a combination of an allowable X-direction load in a predetermined x direction in a plane orthogonal to a lamination direction in which layers of the composite laminate are laminated, an allowable Y-direction load in a y direction orthogonal to the x direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction, and an allowable shearing load in a shearing direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction”,
“the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure formed with a number of composite layers each having a fiber orientation among the fiber orientation angles, the number of composite layers in the basic laminated structure being set to a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure”,
“determining whether a working load acting on the composite laminate is included within the allowable load region”,
“when it is determined that the working load is not included within the allowable load region, increasing the allowable load region via a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure”, and
“selecting as a composite laminate design the basic laminated structure having the predetermined orientation ratio with a smallest magnification needed for inclusion of the working load within the allowable load region is smallest”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angle,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles starting from a minimum ratio of the number of layers for any fiber orientation to the total number of layers in the composite laminate for a certain working load,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads,
a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies, and
a person can mentally choose or draw with pen and paper the composite laminate design that meets a certain working load capacity that is within the range of loads and the total number of layers in the composite laminate has been kept to a minimum.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements to integrate it into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception, but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include any additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the claim into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites an additional element recitation of “An aircraft comprising a composite laminate designed with the composite laminate designing method according to Claim 1” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional element recitation of “forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structure”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional limitations of “wherein increasing the allowable load region to include the working load is effected by repeatedly multiplying the basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer” and “determining after each magnification if the working load is included within the increased allowable load region”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13), and calculating if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it recites additional limitations of:
“wherein increasing the allowable load region to include the working load is effected by repeatedly multiplying the basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer”,
“determining after each magnification if the working load is included within the increased allowable load region”, and
“ceasing further magnifications upon determining that the working load is included within the allowable load region”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies if the working load is less the allowable load,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads, and
a person can mentally choose or draw with pen and paper the composite laminate design that meets a certain working load capacity that is within the range of loads and the total number of layers in the composite laminate has been kept to a minimum and thus not continue to increase the number of plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 17, it recites additional element recitation of “wherein the physical composite laminate part is an aircraft wing part” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 18, it recites additional element recitation of “forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Further claims 6-9 and 13-16 were examined for patent subject matter eligibility continuing at Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 6: The limitations of:
“deriving a plurality of allowable load regions, each allowable load region associated with a respective one of the plurality of basic laminated structures, each allowable load region represented by a plurality of different surfaces arranged in three dimensions, the plurality of different surfaces including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values for the different fiber orientation arrangements of the associated basic laminated structure”,
“determining based on database data regarding magnitude and direction of a working load on a part, whether the working load is included within any one or more of said allowable load regions”, and
“wherein when determines that the working load is not included within any of said allowable load regions, magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminated structures while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure”,
“derives allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures”, and
“determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures” as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object for the different fiber orientation arrangements and experience tensile and compression loads can be conducted using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles (Pg. 10-13 contain the equations for solving the inverse laminate fiber stiffness matrix),
calculating if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads,
calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 14-16),
calculating a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object with increased plies for the different fiber orientation arrangements and experience tensile and compression loads can be conducted using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles (Pg. 10-13 contain the equations for solving the inverse laminate fiber stiffness matrix), and
calculating again after increases the number of plies, if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 6: The limitations of:
“setting a plurality of basic laminated structures with each basic laminated structure being formed with a number of laminated plies and having different fiber orientation arrangements, the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set to a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a laminated ply having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure”
“deriving a plurality of allowable load regions, each allowable load region associated with a respective one of the plurality of basic laminated structures, each allowable load region represented by a plurality of different surfaces arranged in three dimensions, the plurality of different surfaces including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values for the different fiber orientation arrangements of the associated basic laminated structure”,
“determining based on database data regarding magnitude and direction of a working load on a part, whether the working load is included within any one or more of said allowable load regions”,
“wherein when determines that the working load is not included within any of said allowable load regions, magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminated structures while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure”,
“derives allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures”,
“determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures”, and
“when determines that the working load is included within any of said allowable load regions, selecting, as a selected composite laminate design, the basic laminate laminated structure associated with the allowable load region within that the working load is included”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be conducted as the following
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a composite laminate part that has a stack of plies that have different fiber orientation arrangements and has a minimum ratio of the number of layers for any fiber orientation to the total number of layers in the composite laminate,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object for the different fiber orientation arrangements and that experience tensile and compression loads by using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles,
a person can determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads,
a person can increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of the composite laminate part such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies if the given work load is numerically greater than the highest load value in the range of loads,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object with increased number of plies for the different fiber orientation arrangements and that experience tensile and compression loads by using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles,
a person can again determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads after increases the number of plies, and
a person can choose or draw with pen and paper the composite laminate design that has a specified fiber orientation with an increased number of plies and given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 6 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 6: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“the method utilizing a designing apparatus comprised of a deriver, a determiner, and a selector, with each of the deriver and the determiner being in communication with a database, and the deriver being in communication with the determiner, and with the determiner being in communication with the selector”, “the deriver”, “the selector”, and “the determiner”, which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements,
“obtaining with the deriver allowable strain values from the database, with the allowable strain values corresponding, respectively, to the different fiber orientation arrangements in the basic laminating structures” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), and
“forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the selected composite laminate design” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 6 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 6: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional limitations of:
“following magnification of the basic laminated structure, if determines that the working load is not within any of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures, further increases magnification of the basic laminated structures”,
“derives allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures”, and
“determines whether the working load is within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13),
calculating a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object with increased plies for the different fiber orientation arrangements and experience tensile and compression loads can be conducted using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles (Pg. 10-13 contain the equations for solving the inverse laminate fiber stiffness matrix), and
calculating if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites additional limitations of:
“following magnification of the basic laminated structure, if determines that the working load is not within any of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures, further increases magnification of the basic laminated structures”,
“derives allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures”, and
“determines whether the working load is within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be conducted as the following
a person can increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of the composite laminate part such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies if the given work load is numerically greater than the highest load value in the range of loads,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a range of loads in three dimensions for a composite laminate object with increased number of plies for the different fiber orientation arrangements and that experience tensile and compression loads by using material strain properties and solving the inverse stiffness matrix for laminate fiber orientation angles, and
a person can again determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads after increases the number of plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites additional element recitation of “the deriver” and “the determiner”, which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an additional limitation of: “if determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, selects the basic laminated structure having the allowable load region that includes the working load and has a smallest magnification”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can choose or draw with pen and paper the composite laminate design that has a specified fiber orientation with an increased number of plies and given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, it recites additional element recitation of “the determiner” and “the selector”, which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional element recitation of “wherein the physical composite laminate part is an aircraft wing part” which is merely a recitation of instructions to apply the abstract idea as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished or the mechanism to accomplish the solution (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Additionally, the additional element is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea, and not an improved process of performing the manufacture of a part. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structures is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structures is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structures is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structures is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structures”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 15, it recites additional limitations of “repeatedly magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by multiplying each basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer” and “repeatedly determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures repeating multiplication of each basic laminated structure by the predetermined integer and the determiner repeating determination as to whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures until determines that the working load is within one or more allowable load regions”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating an increase in the allowable load region can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., multiplying each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio (see Pg. 25 and claims 10-13), and calculating if a given load is within a range of loads can be conducted using simple arithmetic, i.e., workload is less than the maximum load in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, it recites additional limitations of: “repeatedly magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by multiplying each basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer” and “repeatedly determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures repeating multiplication of each basic laminated structure by the predetermined integer and the determiner repeating determination as to whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures until determines that the working load is within one or more allowable load regions” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally increase or draw with pen and paper the number of plies of each fiber orientation by multiplying the each of the number of plies for each fiber orientation by an integer to maintain the given orientation ratio such that the orientation ratio is maintained to increase the load region of the plies if the working load is less the allowable load, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that a given work load is included within a range of loads by seeing if the given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, it recites additional element recitation of “the deriver” and “the determiner”, which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 16, it recites an additional limitation of: “if determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, and further determines that more than one of the basic laminated structures associated with the more than one of the allowable load regions within which the working load is included have the smallest magnification, selects the basic laminated structure based on predetermined priority levels as to fiber orientation selections that are set in advance”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can choose or draw with pen and paper the composite laminate design that has a specified fiber orientation with an increased number of plies, given work load is numerically less than the highest load value in the range of loads, and meets a priority level specified if more than one design contain the smallest number of plies.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, it recites additional element recitation of “the determiner” and “the selector”, which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 3, and 5-18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3, 5, 10-12, and 17-18 as well as claims 7-9 and 13-16 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependents claim 1 and 6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,140,388 B1 Rassaian et al. [herein “Rassaian”].
As per claim 1, Rassaian teaches “A composite laminate designing method comprising: deriving, on a basis of allowable strains corresponding to fiber orientation angles in a composite laminate having the fiber orientation angles, an allowable load region, the allowable load region representing in three dimensions a combination of an allowable X-direction load in a predetermined x direction in a plane orthogonal to a lamination direction in which layers of the composite laminate are laminated, an allowable Y-direction load in a y direction orthogonal to the x direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction, and an allowable shearing load in a shearing direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction”. (Col. 8 Ln. 32-39, “the method 200 of generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate” [A composite laminate designing method] “may be implemented in a finite element analysis program or solver such as Nastran™, Abaqus™, OptiStruct™, Genesis™, or any other suitable finite element program. The method 200 may include Step 202 (i.e., step a) of computing a normalized set of lamination parameters and normalized laminate stiffness matrices (ABD matrices)” [deriving allowable load region]. Col. 7 Ln. 15-16, “The coefficients Qij of the stiffness matrix may relate stresses in the plies 134 to strains in the plies 134” [a basis of allowable strains]. Col. 4 Ln. 42-45, “the plate 106 may be formed as an initial composite laminate 118 comprising a stack of individual composite plies 134 having fiber angles oriented in a quasi-isotropic arrangement” [corresponding to fiber orientation angles in a composite laminate having the fiber orientation angles]. Col. 5 Ln 28-36, “N represents the resultant of extensional or in-plane force in a composite laminate,” [load region] “and M represents the resultant of the bending moment in the composite laminate. The forces N and moments M are the through-thickness integrated sums of the forces and moments on each ply. FIG. 5 is a representative element Plam of the composite laminate and illustrates the orientations of the components (Nx, Ny, Nxv) of the forces N and the components (Mx, My, Mxv) of the moments M” [allowable load region representing in three dimensions a combination X-direction load in a predetermined x direction, Y-direction load in a y direction, and an allowable shearing load in a shearing direction]. FIG. 5 shows that Ny (e.g., y-directional load) is orthogonal to Nx (e.g., x-directional load) and that Nxv (e.g., shearing load) in a shearing direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction. Col. 5 Ln. 39-41, “wherein the x-axis may be oriented in general alignment with the primary load direction 112 through the composite laminate” [i.e., x direction in a plane orthogonal to a lamination direction in which layers of the composite laminate are laminated]. Further see Fig. 5 which shows the components of the load region components and Col. 6 and 7 which shows the equations in determining them. Further see Col. 5-8. The examiner has interpreted that a method of generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate that implements a finite element analysis to compute a set of lamination parameters and laminate stiffness matrices relating to the strain and fiber angles in the plies of the laminate for in-plane forces comprised of an x-component in alignment with the primary load direction through the composite laminate, y-component orthogonal to the x-component, and moment causing a shear force orthogonal to the x-direction as a composite laminate designing method comprising: deriving, on a basis of allowable strains corresponding to fiber orientation angles in a composite laminate having the fiber orientation angles, an allowable load region, the allowable load region representing in three dimensions a combination of an allowable X-direction load in a predetermined x direction in a plane orthogonal to a lamination direction in which layers of the composite laminate are laminated, an allowable Y-direction load in a y direction orthogonal to the x direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction, and an allowable shearing load in a shearing direction in the plane orthogonal to the lamination direction.)
Rassaian also teaches “the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure formed with a number of composite layers each having a fiber orientation among the fiber orientation angles, the number of composite layers in the basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure”. (Col. 16 Ln. 11-19, “Step 212 (i.e., step f) of the method may include selecting from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria to ensure that the optimized design model is feasible. In some examples, the lamination layup criteria may define a required relationship between one or more plies 134 of the composite laminate. For example, the lamination layup criteria may require a balanced and/or symmetric stacking sequence”. Col. 9 Ln. 31-38, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup) The normalized set of lamination parameters may be computed based on the traditional composite layup containing a percentage of plies 134 such as a 40/50/10 layup, a 60/30/10 layup, or any other layup” [minimum number of plies for a balanced and symmetric stack of a 40/50/10 layup is 40 plies, e.g., the number of composite layers in the basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure]. Col. 10 Ln. 33-36, “The inversion process may extract a set of solutions from the optimized or adjusted lamination parameters for a final laminate design at the adjusted laminate thickness” [the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure]. Further Col. 15 Ln 31-42, “For an optimized design model configured as a traditional laminate 122 or quasi-isotropic laminate or a non-traditional laminate each solution may be described via a stacking sequence wherein the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies 134 as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies 134. Step 210 of the method may extract multiple solutions (e.g., 7 solutions) from the optimum or adjusted lamination parameters. Each one of the solutions may contain a traditional laminate 122 stacking sequence specifying the location and fiber angle for each one of the equi-thickness composite plies 134 in the stacking sequence” [the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure formed with a number of composite layers each having a fiber orientation among the fiber orientation angles, the basic laminated structure comprising a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure]. Further see Col. 9, 10, and 15-16. The examiner has interpreted that adjusting the laminate thickness to determine optimized lamination parameters configured for a traditional laminate where the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies of equal thickness of the composite plies in a balanced and symmetric staking sequence of a plate thickness consisting of 40 plies in a 40/50/10 layup as the allowable load region being derived from a basic laminated structure formed with a number of composite layers each having a fiber orientation among the fiber orientation angles, the number of composite layers in the basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said composite layers according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a composite layer having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure.)
Rassaian also teaches “determining whether a working load acting on the composite laminate is included within the allowable load region”. (Col. 16 Ln 47-49, “the margin of safety of a composite laminate may be calculated by comparing the applied strain to the allowed strain in the analysis direction.” Further see Col. 16. The examiner has interpreted that comparing the applied strain to the allowed strain for the composite laminate in determining a margin of safety as determining whether a working load acting on the composite laminate is included within the allowable load region.)
Rassaian also teaches “when it is determined that the working load is not included within the allowable load region, increasing the allowable load region via a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure”. (Col. 17 Ln. 10-22, “For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [when it is determined that the working load is not included within the allowable load region]. Col. 13 Ln. 34-37, “The design variables include the laminate thickness and the lamination parameters”. Col. 15 Ln 31-42, “For an optimized design model configured as a traditional laminate 122 or quasi-isotropic laminate or a non-traditional laminate each solution may be described via a stacking sequence wherein the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies 134 as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies 134” [e.g., maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure]. “Step 210 of the method may extract multiple solutions (e.g., 7 solutions) from the optimum or adjusted lamination parameters. Each one of the solutions may contain a traditional laminate 122 stacking sequence specifying the location and fiber angle for each one of the equi-thickness composite plies 134 in the stacking sequence” [plies having the same thickness]. Further Col. 10 Ln. 40-43 “a separate optimization was performed for the above-described 40/50/10 layup wherein the lamination parameters were constant and the only design variable was laminate thickness T” [a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure]. Col. 9 Ln. 31-34, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup)” [number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies, e.g., a magnification of the basic laminated structure]. Also, see Col. 15 Ln. 8-14, “Because composite plies 134 are typically commercially-available in a limited number of thicknesses (e.g., 0.0074 inch/ply), the laminate thickness must be adjusted (e.g., upwardly) such that the total quantity of plies 134 in the composite laminate is an integer (e.g., 9 plies) and which results in an adjusted laminate thickness of 0.067 inch (9 plies @ 0.0074 inch/ply)” [again, number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies, e.g., a magnification of the basic laminated structure]. Col. 11 Ln 61-64, “Optimization control parameters may include setting limits on maximum increases/decreases in values of the design parameters between each iteration (e.g., no more than 5% value change between iterations)” [e.g., a magnification of the basic laminated structure]. Col. 15 Ln. 20-28, “Step 210 (i.e., step e) of the method may include performing an inversion process to extract multiple solutions from the optimum or adjusted lamination parameters using the above-described lamination parameter Equations 170-250. Each one of the solutions represents an optimized design model of the composite laminate at the adjusted laminate thickness and corresponding quantity of equi-thickness plies 134, and includes a unique set of individual fiber angles for each ply” [increasing the allowable load region via a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region]. Further see Col. 9-11, 13, 15, and 17. The examiner has interpreted that having a laminate thickness having equi-thickness composite plies where an increase in thickness is an increase in plies, limiting the amount of thickness increases, and adjusting the increase of the total number of plies to optimize through an inversion process to extract multiple solutions and repeating the optimization process until the margin of safety requires are met through the design verification where the solutions in the optimization process have constant fiber angles in each ply and only include traditionally oriented plies and further only change the thickness of the laminate having an equivalent thickness of the plies as when it is determined that the working load is not included within the allowable load region, increasing the allowable load region via a magnification of the basic laminated structure to include the working load within the allowable load region while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure.)
Rassaian also teaches “selecting as a composite laminate design the basic laminated structure having the predetermined orientation ratio with a smallest magnification needed for inclusion of the working load within the allowable load region is smallest.” (Col. 11 Ln. 40-44, “The optimizer and the finite element analysis may determine the optimum lamination parameters and an optimum (e.g., minimum) laminate thickness that best matches the stiffness requirements, loading requirements, and other design rules and/or manufacturing rules” [selecting as a composite laminate design the basic laminated structure with a smallest magnification]. Col. 10 Ln. 40-43 “a separate optimization was performed for the above-described 40/50/10 layup wherein the lamination parameters were constant and the only design variable was laminate thickness T” [the basic laminated structure having the predetermined orientation ratio]. Col. 15 Ln 31-42, “For an optimized design model configured as a traditional laminate 122 or quasi-isotropic laminate” [the basic laminated structure having the predetermined orientation ratio]. Col. 17 Ln 6-10, “Step 218 (step h) of the method may include repeating Step 206 (step c) through Step 214 (step g) until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [needed for inclusion of the working load within the allowable load region is smallest]. Further see Col. 10-11, 15, and 17. The examiner has interpreted that configuring the optimized design model configured as a quasi-isotropic laminate orientation paraments that is constant except for thickness and determining the optimum lamination parameters and minimum laminate thickness to meet loading and the margin of safety requirements as selecting as a composite laminate design the basic laminated structure having the predetermined orientation ratio with a smallest magnification needed for inclusion of the working load within the allowable load region is smallest.)
Re Claim 3, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 3 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Rassaian teaches “An aircraft comprising a composite laminate designed with the composite laminate designing method according to Claim 1.” (Col. 4 Ln. 34-40, “the structural assembly 100 may be a load-carrying member in an aircraft. FIG. 2 illustrates a square plate 106 portion of the structural assembly 100 of FIG. 1 under pure in-plane tension loading 110 to illustrate the system and method disclosed herein for generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate 120 (FIG. 7).” Further see Col. 2 and Figure 2 and 7. The examiner has interpreted that a square plate portion of a structural assembly, which is a load-carry member of an aircraft, to illustrate the method for generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate as an aircraft comprising a composite laminate designed with the composite laminate designing method according to Claim 1.)
As per claim 5, Rassaian teaches “forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1.” (Col. 19 Ln. 55-63, “The output file generator 340 may generate an output file representing the optimized design model of the composite laminate. The output file may be configured as a program or computer-readable instructions to be executed by a processor of a numerical control machine such as an automated tape laying machine or a tow placement machine. The program may fabricate the composite laminate by causing the machine to lay up fibers according to the individual fiber angles for each ply of the optimized design model” [forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the composite laminate design]. Col. 9 Ln. 43-48, “the initial laminate design for the square plate of FIG. 2 may be described as a 40/50/10 layup containing 40% of 0 degree plies, 50% of +45 degree plies, and 10% of 90 degree plies formed of carbon fiber/epoxy resin pre-impregnated unidirectional tape designated as IM7/8552” [by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio]. Col. 15 Ln 31-42, “For an optimized design model configured as a traditional laminate 122 or quasi-isotropic laminate”. Col. 16 Ln. 11-19, “Step 212 (i.e., step f) of the method may include selecting from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria to ensure that the optimized design model is feasible. In some examples, the lamination layup criteria may define a required relationship between one or more plies 134 of the composite laminate. For example, the lamination layup criteria may require a balanced and/or symmetric stacking sequence” [the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1]. Further see Col. 9, 15-16, and 19-20. The examiner has interpreted that generating an output file of the optimized design model of the composite laminate as a program that is executed on a numerical control machine to fabricate the composite laminate using a solution selector to select from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria that require a balanced and symmetric stacking sequence that comprises a stack of individual composite plies having fiber angles oriented in a quasi-isotropic arrangement of 0, 45, and 90 degrees and for each ply of the optimized solution as forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1.)
As per claim 6, Rassaian teaches “A method of forming a composite laminate with the composite laminate comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin with each laminated ply having a fiber orientation angle”. (Col. 19 Ln. 55-63, “The output file generator 340 may generate an output file representing the optimized design model of the composite laminate. The output file may be configured as a program or computer-readable instructions to be executed by a processor of a numerical control machine such as an automated tape laying machine or a tow placement machine. The program may fabricate the composite laminate by causing the machine to lay up fibers according to the individual fiber angles for each ply of the optimized design model” [A method of forming a composite laminate with the composite laminate comprised of a plurality of laminated plies with each laminated ply having a fiber orientation angle]. Col. 9 Ln. 43-48, “the initial laminate design for the square plate of FIG. 2 may be described as a 40/50/10 layup containing 40% of 0 degree plies, 50% of +45 degree plies, and 10% of 90 degree plies formed of carbon fiber/epoxy resin pre-impregnated unidirectional tape designated as IM7/8552” [a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin]. Further see Col. 9 and 19. The examiner has interpreted that generating an output file of the optimized design model of the composite laminate as a program that is executed on a numerical control machine to fabricate the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria that requires a layup of the fibers of each ply accordioning to the individual fiber angles for each ply such as a stack of individual composite plies having fiber angles oriented in a quasi-isotropic arrangement of 0, 45, and 90 degrees as a method of forming a composite laminate with the composite laminate comprised of a plurality of laminated plies of fiber reinforced resin with each laminated ply having a fiber orientation angle.)
Rassaian also teaches “the method utilizing a designing apparatus comprised of a deriver, a determiner, and a selector, with each of the deriver and the determiner being in communication with a database, and the deriver being in communication with the determiner, and with the determiner being in communication with the selector”. (Col. 17 Ln. 46-51, “The block diagram of FIG. 20 illustrates the processor-based system 300 in an advantageous embodiment that may use lamination parameters as design variables to determine an optimum laminate thickness and a unique set of individual fiber angles for each ply of an optimized design model of a composite laminate” [the method utilizing a designing apparatus]. Fig. 20 shows various components of the system as described as follows. Col. 17 Ln. 60-67, “the components may include one or more of a processor 304, a memory device 306” [a database], “ a non-volatile storage device 308, a communications device 312, an input/output device 310, a display device 314, a normalizer 326” [a deriver], “ a finite element model generator 328, an optimizer 330, a laminate thickness adjuster 332, a matrix inverter 334, a solution selector 336” [a selector], “a design verifier 338” [a determiner]. Col. 20 Ln 29-31, “The memory device 306 may be configured to permanently and/or temporarily store any one of a variety of different types of data” [database]. Col. 17 Ln. 51-59, “The processor-based system 300 may include a data communication path 302 ( e.g., a data link) to communicatively couple one or more components to facilitate transfer of data between such components. The communication path 302 may comprise one or more data buses or any other suitable communication path that facilitates the transfer of data between the components and devices of the processor-based system 300” [with each of the deriver and the determiner being in communication with a database, and the deriver being in communication with the determiner, and with the determiner being in communication with the selector]. Further see Col. 17 and 20. The examiner has interpreted that a processor-based system to determine an optimum laminate thickness and a unique set of individual fiber angles for each ply of an optimized design model of a composite laminate having various components of a normalizer, a design verifier, a solution selector, a memory device that stores data, and data communication path to communicatively couple the components to facilitate transfer of data between such component as the method utilizing a designing apparatus comprised of a deriver, a determiner, and a selector, with each of the deriver and the determiner being in communication with a database, and the deriver being in communication with the determiner, and with the determiner being in communication with the selector.)
Rassaian also teaches “setting, with the deriver, a plurality of basic laminated structures with each basic laminated structure being formed with a number of laminated plies and having different fiber orientation arrangements, the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a laminated ply having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure”.(Col. 9 Ln. 43-48, “the initial laminate design for the square plate of FIG. 2 may be described as a 40/50/10 layup containing 40% of 0 degree plies, 50% of +45 degree plies, and 10% of 90 degree plies formed of carbon fiber/epoxy resin pre-impregnated unidirectional tape designated as IM7/8552” [setting a plurality of basic laminating structures with each basic laminated structure being formed with a number of laminated plies and having different fiber orientation arrangements, according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a laminated ply having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure]. Col. 18 Ln. 1-7, “A user may enter an initial laminate design 342 into the normalizer 326 using the input/output device 310. The information may be transmitted via the communication path 302 illustrated in FIG. 20. A user may enter into the normalizer 326 a general ply arrangement (e.g., a 40/50/10 quasi-isotropic layup) and an initial laminate thickness T representing a structure” [with the deriver]. Col. 16 Ln. 11-19, “Step 212 (i.e., step f) of the method may include selecting from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria to ensure that the optimized design model is feasible. In some examples, the lamination layup criteria may define a required relationship between one or more plies 134 of the composite laminate. For example, the lamination layup criteria may require a balanced and/or symmetric stacking sequence”. Col. 9 Ln. 31-38, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup) The normalized set of lamination parameters may be computed based on the traditional composite layup containing a percentage of plies 134 such as a 40/50/10 layup, a 60/30/10 layup, or any other layup” [minimum number of plies for a balanced and symmetric stack of a 40/50/10 layup is 40 plies, e.g., the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a laminated ply having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure]. Further see Col. 9, 16, and 18. The examiner has interpreted that having an initial laminate where the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies of equal thickness of the composite plies in a balanced and symmetric staking sequence of a plate thickness consisting of 40 plies in a 40/50/10 layup that is received and initialized by the normalizer as setting, with the deriver, a plurality of basic laminated structures with each basic laminated structure being formed with a number of laminated plies and having different fiber orientation arrangements, the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio that is a ratio of a thickness of a laminated ply having a given fiber orientation angle to a total thickness of the basic laminate structure.)
Rassaian also teaches “obtaining, with the deriver, allowable strain values from the database, with the allowable strain values corresponding, respectively, to the different fiber orientation arrangements of the basic laminated structures”. (Col. 7 Ln. 15-16, “The coefficients Qij of the stiffness matrix may relate stresses in the plies 134 to strains in the plies 134” [allowable strains]. Col. 18 Ln 7-17, “The normalizer may compute a normalized set of lamination parameters and laminate stiffness matrices of the initial laminate design according to the above-described Equations 170-280. Alternatively, a user may enter into the normalizer a specific stacking sequence of a predetermined quasi-isotropic laminate or a non-traditional laminate, and the normalizer may compute a normalized set of values for the lamination parameters and the laminate stiffness matrices. The normalizer may compute normalized values for all twelve (12) of the lamination parameters” [obtaining, with the deriver, allowable strain values]. Col. 4 Ln. 42-45, “the plate 106 may be formed as an initial composite laminate 118 comprising a stack of individual composite plies 134 having fiber angles oriented in a quasi-isotropic arrangement” [corresponding to orientation angles in the basic laminating structures]. FIG. 7 shows that the fiber angles are different, i.e., 0 degrees, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees, e.g., different fiber orientations. Col. 9 Ln. 43-48, “the initial laminate design for the square plate of FIG. 2 may be described as a 40/50/10 layup containing 40% of 0 degree plies, 50% of +45 degree plies, and 10% of 90 degree plies formed of carbon fiber/epoxy resin pre-impregnated unidirectional tape designated as IM7/8552” [different fiber orientation of the basic laminated structures]. Col. 20 Ln 29-31, “The memory device 306 may be configured to permanently and/or temporarily store any one of a variety of different types of data” [database]. Col. 17 Ln. 51-59, “The processor-based system 300 may include a data communication path 302 ( e.g., a data link) to communicatively couple one or more components to facilitate transfer of data between such components. The communication path 302 may comprise one or more data buses or any other suitable communication path that facilitates the transfer of data between the components and devices of the processor-based system 300” [obtain from the database]. Further see Col. 4, 7, 9, 17, 18, and 20. The examiner has interpreted that computing a set of lamination parameters and laminate stiffness matrices relating to the strain and variety of fiber angles in the plies of the laminate using the normalizer that is then stored in a memory device for the transfer to other components of the system as obtaining, with the deriver, allowable strain values from the database, with the allowable strain values corresponding, respectively, to the different fiber orientation arrangements of the basic laminated structures.)
Rassaian also teaches “deriving, with the deriver, a plurality of allowable load regions, each allowable load region associated with a respective one of the plurality of basic laminated structures, each allowable load region represented by a plurality of different surfaces arranged in three dimensions, the plurality of different surfaces including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values for the different fiber orientation arrangements of the associated basic laminated structure”. (Col. 18 Ln. 20-21, “the normalizer may compute normalized values for the A, B, and/or D stiffness matrices, as described above” [deriving, with the deriver, allowable load regions]. Col. 5 Ln 28-31, “N represents the resultant of extensional or in-plane force in a composite laminate,” [allowable load region] “and M represents the resultant of the bending moment in the composite laminate” [including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values]. Further see equation 10 for the relation of A B, and/or D stiffness matrices to N and M. Col. 4 Ln. 62-67, “Furthermore, the system and method may be implemented for generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate that may be subjected to any one of a variety of different loading conditions including static and/or dynamic tension loads, compression loads, shear loads, torsional loads, and any combination thereof” [tensile loads and compression loads]. Col. 5 Ln 31-36, “The forces N and moments M are the through-thickness integrated sums of the forces and moments on each ply” [deriving a plurality of allowable load regions]. “FIG. 5 is a representative element Plam of the composite laminate and illustrates the orientations of the components (Nx, Ny, Nxv) of the forces N and the components (Mx, My, Mxv) of the moments M” [a plurality of allowable load regions, each allowable load region associated with a respective one of the plurality of basic laminated structures, each represented by a plurality of different surfaces arranged in three dimensions, the plurality of different surfaces including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values]. FIG. 5 shows that the different forces, N, and moments, m, which act on the different surfaces of the laminate structure. Col. 1 Ln. 59-62, “Composite laminates containing plies with fibers oriented at angles other than the 60 traditional 0 degrees, ±45 degrees, and/or 90 degrees may be referred to as non-traditional laminates”. Col. 8 Ln. 46- 47, “the optimization process may also be implemented for an initial composite laminate 118 formed as a traditional layup containing composite plies 134 in a quasi-isotropic arrangement including an actual stacking sequence of 0, +45, -45, and 90 degree plies 134 as shown in FIG. 7. Alternatively, the initial composite laminate 118 may be a non-traditional layup wherein at least some of the longitudinal plies 134 (e.g., traditionally oriented parallel to the primary load direction 112) may be replaced with plies 134 oriented at +/-5 degrees to +/-15 degrees or more relative to the primary load direction 112, as shown in FIG. 8” [for the different fiber orientation arrangements associated with the different surfaces of the basic laminating structures]. Further see Col. 1, 4, 5, 8, and 18. The examiner has interpreted that computing normalized values for stiffness matrices to illustrate the orientations of an x, y, and z components of the resultant forces and moments from tension loads, compression loads, shear loads, and torsional loads experienced by the composite laminate on each ply for traditional and non-traditional laminate fiber orientation angles as deriving, with the deriver, a plurality of allowable load regions, each allowable load region associated with a respective one of the plurality of basic laminated structures, each allowable load region represented by a plurality of different surfaces arranged in three dimensions, the plurality of different surfaces including representations of allowable tensile load values and allowable compression load values for the different fiber orientation arrangements of the associated basic laminated structure.)
Rassaian also teaches “determining, with the determiner, based on database data regarding magnitude and direction of a working load on a part, whether the working load is included within any one or more of said allowable load regions”. (Col. 1 Ln. 44-49, “For certain structures, loading conditions may dictate a composite laminate requiring a relatively large quantity of plies. For example, a wing panel of an aircraft may require up to one hundred or more composite plies, each of which requires the determination of the fiber angle and the thickness” [a working load on a part of the aircraft]. Col. 20 Ln 29-31, “The memory device 306 may be configured to permanently and/or temporarily store any one of a variety of different types of data” [database]. Col. 17 Ln. 51-59, “The processor-based system 300 may include a data communication path 302 ( e.g., a data link) to communicatively couple one or more components to facilitate transfer of data between such components. The communication path 302 may comprise one or more data buses or any other suitable communication path that facilitates the transfer of data between the components and devices of the processor-based system 300” [database data]. Col. 16 Ln 47-49, “the margin of safety of a composite laminate may be calculated by comparing the applied strain to the allowed strain in the analysis direction” [determining based on database data regarding magnitude and direction of a working load on a part, whether is included within any one or more of said allowable load regions determined]. Col. 19 Ln. 37-39, “the design verifier 338 may perform a design verification of the preferred solution to determine if margin of safety requirements are met” [by the determiner]. Further see Col. 1, 11, 16, 19, and 20. The examiner has interpreted that defining load conditions for a wing panel of an aircraft that is then stored in a memory device for the transfer to other components of the system where the loading conditions are given in terms of strength constraints and stiffness constraints that define maximum element strain for a factor of safety in comparing of directions of applied strain to the allowed strain that is performed by the design verifier as determining, with the determiner, based on database data regarding magnitude and direction of a working load on a part, whether the working load is included within any one or more of said allowable load regions.)
Rassaian also teaches “wherein when the determiner determines that the working load is not included within any of said allowable load regions, the deriver magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminated structures while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure and derives allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures”. (Col. 17 Ln. 10-22, “For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [when the determiner determines that the working load is not included within any of said allowable load regions]. Col. 13 Ln. 34-37, “The design variables include the laminate thickness and the lamination parameters”. Col. 15 Ln 31-42, “For an optimized design model configured as a traditional laminate 122 or quasi-isotropic laminate or a non-traditional laminate each solution may be described via a stacking sequence wherein the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies 134 as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies 134” [e.g., while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure]. “Step 210 of the method may extract multiple solutions (e.g., 7 solutions) from the optimum or adjusted lamination parameters. Each one of the solutions may contain a traditional laminate 122 stacking sequence specifying the location and fiber angle for each one of the equi-thickness composite plies 134 in the stacking sequence” [plies having the same thickness]. Further Col. 10 Ln. 40-43 “a separate optimization was performed for the above-described 40/50/10 layup wherein the lamination parameters were constant and the only design variable was laminate thickness T” [magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminated structures]. Col. 9 Ln. 31-34, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup)” [number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies]. Also, see Col. 15 Ln. 8-14, “Because composite plies 134 are typically commercially-available in a limited number of thicknesses (e.g., 0.0074 inch/ply), the laminate thickness must be adjusted (e.g., upwardly) such that the total quantity of plies 134 in the composite laminate is an integer (e.g., 9 plies) and which results in an adjusted laminate thickness of 0.067 inch (9 plies @ 0.0074 inch/ply)” [again, number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies]. Col. 11 Ln 61-64, “Optimization control parameters may include setting limits on maximum increases/decreases in values of the design parameters between each iteration (e.g., no more than 5% value change between iterations)” [increase in magnification of the basic laminated structures]. Col. 10 Ln 33-38, “The inversion process may extract a set of solutions from the optimized or adjusted lamination parameters for a final laminate design at the adjusted laminate thickness. Each solution includes a unique set of individual fiber angles 8 for each ply and represents an optimized design model of the composite laminate”. Col. 15 Ln. 20-28, “Step 210 (i.e., step e) of the method may include performing an inversion process to extract multiple solutions from the optimum or adjusted lamination parameters using the above-described lamination parameter Equations 170-250. Each one of the solutions represents an optimized design model of the composite laminate at the adjusted laminate thickness and corresponding quantity of equi-thickness plies 134, and includes a unique set of individual fiber angles for each ply” [change in the thickness and number of plies to determine unique solutions, increases magnification of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminating structures]. Further see Col. 9-11, 13, 15, and 17. The examiner has interpreted that having a laminate thickness having equi-thickness composite plies where an increase in thickness is an increase in plies, limiting the amount of thickness increases, and adjusting the increase of the total number of plies to optimize through an inversion process to extract multiple solutions that represent an optimized design model with adjusted laminate thickness only and corresponding quantity of equi-thickness plies where limits are set with respect to the increase of design parameters to repeat the optimization until the margin of safety requires are met through the design verification as wherein when the determiner determines that the working load is not included within any of said allowable load regions, the deriver magnifies each of the basic laminated structures by way of an increase in the number of laminated plies associated with each of the plurality of basic laminated structures while maintaining the predetermined orientation ratio of the basic laminated structure and derives allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures.)
Rassaian also teaches “the determiner determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures”. (Col. 17 Ln. 7-22, “Step 218 (step h) of the method may include repeating Step 206 (step c) through Step 214 (step g) until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements. For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [determiner determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures]. Further see Col. 1, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20. The examiner has interpreted that repeating the steps until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements as determiner determines whether the working load is included within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures.)
Rassaian also teaches “when the determiner determines that the working load is included within any of said allowable load regions, selecting, with the selector, as a selected composite laminate design, the basic laminate laminated structure associated with the allowable load region within which the determiner determined that the working load is included”. (Col. 17 Ln 6-10, “Step 218 (step h) of the method may include repeating Step 206 (step c) through Step 214 (step g) until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements. For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements”” [when the determiner determines that the working load is included within any of said allowable load regions, selecting, with the selector, as a selected composite laminate design, the basic laminate laminated structure associated with the allowable load region within which the determiner determined that the working load is included]. Further see Col. 10-11, 15, and 17. The examiner has interpreted that determining an optimized design model for the composite laminate that is obtained that meets loading and the margin of safety requirements as when the determiner determines that the working load is included within any of said allowable load regions, selecting, with the selector, as a selected composite laminate design, the basic laminate laminated structure associated with the allowable load region within which the determiner determined that the working load is included.)
Rassaian also teaches “forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the selected composite laminate design.” (Col. 19 Ln. 55-63, “The output file generator 340 may generate an output file representing the optimized design model of the composite laminate. The output file may be configured as a program or computer-readable instructions to be executed by a processor of a numerical control machine such as an automated tape laying machine or a tow placement machine. The program may fabricate the composite laminate by causing the machine to lay up fibers according to the individual fiber angles for each ply of the optimized design model” [forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the selected composite laminate design]. Col. 9 Ln. 43-48, “the initial laminate design for the square plate of FIG. 2 may be described as a 40/50/10 layup containing 40% of 0 degree plies, 50% of +45 degree plies, and 10% of 90 degree plies formed of carbon fiber/epoxy resin pre-impregnated unidirectional tape designated as IM7/8552” [by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio]. Col. 4 Ln. 34-45, “the structural assembly 100 may be a load-carrying member in an aircraft. FIG. 2 illustrates a square plate 106 portion of the structural assembly 100 of FIG. 1 under pure in-plane tension loading 110 to illustrate the system and method disclosed herein for generating an optimized design model of a composite laminate 120 (FIG. 7)” [a composite laminate aircraft part]. Further see Col. 4, 9, and 19-20. The examiner has interpreted that generating an output file of the optimized design model of the composite laminate as a program that is executed on a numerical control machine to fabricate the composite laminate for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria including a stack of individual composite plies having fiber angles oriented in a quasi-isotropic arrangement of 0, 45, and 90 degrees and for each ply of the optimized solution as forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the selected composite laminate design.)
As per claim 7, Rassaian teaches “following magnification of the basic laminated structure by the deriver, if the determiner determines that the working load is not within any of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures, the deriver further increases magnification of the basic laminated structures and derives allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures, and the determiner determines whether the working load is within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures.” (Col. 17 Ln. 7-22, “Step 218 (step h) of the method may include repeating Step 206 (step c) through Step 214 (step g) until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements. For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [following magnification of the basic laminated structure by the deriver, if the determiner determines that the working load is not within any of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures, the deriver further increases magnification of the basic laminated structures and derives allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures, and the determiner determines whether the working load is within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures]. Further see Col. 1, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20. The examiner has interpreted that repeating the steps until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements as following magnification of the basic laminated structure by the deriver, if the determiner determines that the working load is not within any of the allowable load regions associated with the magnified basic laminated structures, the deriver further increases magnification of the basic laminated structures and derives allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures, and the determiner determines whether the working load is within any one or more of the allowable load regions associated with the increased magnification basic laminated structures.)
As per claim 8, Rassaian teaches “if the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, the selector selects the basic laminated structure having the allowable load region that includes the working load and has a smallest magnification.” (Col. 19. Ln. 30-35, “The solution selector may select from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria. A user may enter the lamination layup criteria 346 using the input/output device 310. The lamination layup criteria 346 may ensure that the optimized design model is feasible” [wherein, when the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the deriver derived allowable load regions, the selector selects]. Col. 16 Ln. 11-19, “Step 212 (i.e., step f) of the method may include selecting from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria to ensure that the optimized design model is feasible” [selects the basic laminated structure having the allowable load region that includes the working load]. Col. 11 Ln. 40-44, “The optimizer and the finite element analysis may determine the optimum lamination parameters and an optimum (e.g., minimum) laminate thickness that best matches the stiffness requirements, loading requirements, and other design rules and/or manufacturing rules” [selects the basic laminated structure having the allowable load region that includes the working load and has a smallest magnification]. Further see Col. 11, 16, and 19. The examiner has interpreted that using a solution selector to select from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria, the stiffness requirements, loading requirements, and other design rules that require the minimum laminate thickness as if the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, the selector selects the basic laminated structure having the allowable load region that includes the working load and has a smallest magnification.)
As per claim 9, Rassaian teaches “wherein the physical composite laminate part is an aircraft wing part.” (Col. 1 Ln. 44-49, “For certain structures, loading conditions may dictate a composite laminate requiring a relatively large quantity of plies. For example, a wing panel of an aircraft may require up to one hundred or more composite plies, each of which requires the determination of the fiber angle and the thickness” [wherein the physical composite laminate part is an aircraft wing part]. Further see Col. 1. The examiner has interpreted that defining load conditions for a wing panel of an aircraft as wherein the physical composite laminate part is an aircraft wing part.)
As per claim 10, Rassaian teaches “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure.” (Col. 10 Ln. 40-43 “a separate optimization was performed for the above-described 40/50/10 layup wherein the lamination parameters were constant and the only design variable was laminate thickness T” [magnification of the basic laminated structure]. Col. 9 Ln. 31-34, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup)” [number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies]. Also, see Col. 15 Ln. 4-14, “the optimum laminate thickness of 0.060 inch may result in a non-integer value for the plies 134. In this regard, at a common ply thickness of 0.0074 inch, 8.1 plies would be required to form the optimum laminate thickness of 0.060” [wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure]. “Because composite plies 134 are typically commercially-available in a limited number of thicknesses (e.g., 0.0074 inch/ply), the laminate thickness must be adjusted (e.g., upwardly) such that the total quantity of plies 134 in the composite laminate is an integer (e.g., 9 plies) and which results in an adjusted laminate thickness of 0.067 inch (9 plies @ 0.0074 inch/ply)” and Col. 11 Ln 61-64, “Optimization control parameters may include setting limits on maximum increases/decreases in values of the design parameters between each iteration (e.g., no more than 5% value change between iterations)” [e.g., a magnification of the basic laminated structure, again, number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies]. Further see Col. 9-11 and 15. The examiner has interpreted that a composite laminate having a laminate thickness where an increase in thickness is an increase in plies having an equivalent thickness of the plies that require 8.1 plies to achieve the optimum thickness as wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure.)
As per claim 11, Rassaian teaches “wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structure.” (Col. 10 Ln. 40-43 “a separate optimization was performed for the above-described 40/50/10 layup wherein the lamination parameters were constant and the only design variable was laminate thickness T” [magnification of the basic laminated structure]. Col. 9 Ln. 31-34, “The plate thickness may be converted to a composite laminate having an equivalent thickness of 40 composite plies 134 formed of a predetermined material and each having a predetermined ply thickness (e.g., 0.0074 inch) and arranged in a traditional layup ( e.g., a quasi-isotropic layup)” [number of plies correspond to laminate thickness, i.e., increase in thickness is an increase in the number of plies]. Also, see Col. 15 Ln. 4-14, “the optimum laminate thickness of 0.060 inch may result in a non-integer value for the plies 134. In this regard, at a common ply thickness of 0.0074 inch, 8.1 plies would be required to form the optimum laminate thickness of 0.060” [wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via multiplication of the basic laminated structure]. “Because composite plies 134 are typically commercially-available in a limited number of thicknesses (e.g., 0.0074 inch/ply), the laminate thickness must be adjusted (e.g., upwardly) such that the total quantity of plies 134 in the composite laminate is an integer (e.g., 9 plies) and which results in an adjusted laminate thickness of 0.067 inch (9 plies @ 0.0074 inch/ply)” and Col. 11 Ln 61-64, “Optimization control parameters may include setting limits on maximum increases/decreases in values of the design parameters between each iteration (e.g., no more than 5% value change between iterations)” [rounding the non-integer to an integer, e.g., integer multiplication of the basic laminated structure ]. Further see Col. 9-10 and 15. The examiner has interpreted that a composite laminate having a laminate thickness where an increase in thickness is an increase in plies having an equivalent thickness of the plies that require 8.1 plies and adjusting to 9 plies to achieve the optimum thickness as wherein magnification of the basic laminated structure is effected via an integer multiplication of the basic laminated structure.)
As per claim 12, Rassaian teaches “wherein increasing the allowable load region to include the working load is effected by repeatedly multiplying the basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer, determining after each magnification if the working load is included within the increased allowable load region, and ceasing further magnifications upon determining that the working load is included within the allowable load region.” (Col. 17 Ln. 7-22, “Step 218 (step h) of the method may include repeating Step 206 (step c) through Step 214 (step g) until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements. For example, design verification may be performed on a first preferred solution of the optimized design model to determine if a positive margin of safety is provided by the composite laminate. If the first preferred solution fails to meet margin of safety requirements, the optimization process may be re-started at Step 206 (e.g., step c) using the individual fiber angles and the laminate thickness of the first preferred solution. The process may be repeated with one or more additional preferred solutions until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements” [wherein increasing the allowable load region to include the working load is effected by repeatedly multiplying the basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer, determining after each magnification if the working load is included within the increased allowable load region, and ceasing further magnifications upon determining that the working load is included within the allowable load region]. Further see Col. 1, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20. The examiner has interpreted that repeating the steps until an optimized design model for the composite laminate is obtained that meets the margin of safety requirements as wherein increasing the allowable load region to include the working load is effected by repeatedly multiplying the basic laminated structure by a predetermined integer, determining after each magnification if the working load is included within the increased allowable load region, and ceasing further magnifications upon determining that the working load is included within the allowable load region.)
Re Claim 13, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 10. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10.
Re Claim 14, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Re Claim 15, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 12. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12.
As per claim 16, Rassaian teaches “if the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, and further determines that more than one of the basic laminated structures associated with the more than one of the allowable load regions within which the working load is included have the smallest magnification, the selector selects the basic laminated structure based on predetermined priority levels as to fiber orientation selections that are set in advance.” (Col. 19. Ln. 30-35, “The solution selector may select from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria. A user may enter the lamination layup criteria 346 using the input/output device 310. The lamination layup criteria 346 may ensure that the optimized design model is feasible” [if the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions]. Col. 11 Ln. 40-44, “The optimizer and the finite element analysis may determine the optimum lamination parameters and an optimum (e.g., minimum) laminate thickness that best matches the stiffness requirements, loading requirements, and other design rules and/or manufacturing rules” [and further determines that more than one of the basic laminated structures associated with the more than one of the allowable load regions within which the working load is included have the smallest magnification]. Col. 16 Ln. 11-19, “Step 212 (i.e., step f) of the method may include selecting from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on lamination layup criteria to ensure that the optimized design model is feasible. In some examples, the lamination layup criteria may define a required relationship between one or more plies 134 of the composite laminate” [the selector selects the basic laminated structure based on predetermined priority levels as to fiber orientation selections that are set in advance]. Further see Col. 11, 16, and 19. The examiner has interpreted that using a solution selector to select from the multiple solutions a preferred solution for the optimized design model of the composite laminate based on, the stiffness requirements, loading requirements, other design rules, and lamination layup criteria that require the minimum laminate thickness and relationship between one or more plies of the composite laminate as if the determiner determines that the working load is within more than one of the allowable load regions, and further determines that more than one of the basic laminated structures associated with the more than one of the allowable load regions within which the working load is included have the smallest magnification, the selector selects the basic laminated structure based on predetermined priority levels as to fiber orientation selections that are set in advance.)
Re Claim 17, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 18, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 9-14, filed on July 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1, 5, and 6 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim features recite additional elements recite the improvement to a technological field or other meaning full limitations that are significantly more than the judicial exception (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 9-12).
MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” MPEP § 2106.04(I) “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea")”; MPEP § 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements” and “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application” (emphasis added). Furthermore, MPEP § 2106.05(f) recites “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more…Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (emphasis added).
The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process and mathematical concepts an in the rejection above. Being abstract ideas of a design of a composite laminate, these limitations cannot be the inventive concept nor provide the improvement. The claims are directed to an improved process of design a composite, an abstract idea, which cannot provide the improvement to the technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a) “in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01” and “The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process"”). The improvement as provided in the specification is an design that is completed more efficiently (see Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”), which is an abstract idea, and thus cannot provide the improvement and is not analogous to McRO, which provided an improved to the technological process of animation.
Additionally, the additional elements alone or in combination with the abstract idea do not provide the improvement or are significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the additional element in claim 5 of “forming a physical composite laminate part by stacking a plurality of prepreg laminates based on the predetermined orientation ratio and the magnification of the composite laminate design selected according to the composite laminate designing method of claim 1” as similarly recited in claims 3, 6, 9, and 17-18 is merely instructions to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application as it only recites a mere idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. For example, the limitation only recites the idea of creating a physical part as there are no further limitations on what mechanism is creating the part. Additionally, achieving an instance of a design after determining the design has also been found to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element is merely a recitation of instructions apply the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, this additional element in claim 5 is also merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application since improvement as provided by the specification in Pg. 4 Ln. 4- 13 (“With the related art, it may take time to optimize the laminated structure of the composite laminate and it may be difficult to increase the designing efficiency for the composite laminate. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a composite laminate designing method with which the designing efficiency for a composite laminate can be increased and to provide an aircraft that includes a composite laminate designed with the designing method”) is directed to a design that is completed more efficiently, an abstract idea. The limitation does not preempt the use of the abstract idea nor affect the steps of the abstract idea, see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). Contrary, it does not provide an improvement in the process of performing the manufacture of a part, which in Diehr, provided the improvement to manufacturing molds by “constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time” (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) & Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 8 and 10 (1981)).
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes, mathematical concepts, and additional elements that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activities, recite only the idea of a solution or outcome to apply the abstract idea, or a recitation of a field of use/technological environment.
Applicant argues that reference does not teach each and every limitation in the amend claims because the cited reference fails to teach “the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set to a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio” and “increasing the allowable load region via magnification of the basic laminated structure” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 12-14).
MPEP § 2143.03 states “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As mapped in the above amended claim 1 limitation and corresponding claim 6 limitation, Rassaian discloses “the number of laminated plies in each basic laminated structure being set to a minimum number of said laminated plies according to a predetermined orientation ratio” as a traditional laminate where the individual fiber angles are constant in each ply and include only traditionally-oriented plies as a combination of 0, ±45, and 90 degree plies of equal thickness of the composite plies in a balanced and symmetric staking sequence of a plate thickness consisting of 40 plies in a 40/50/10 layup. Since the minimum number of plies for a balanced and symmetric stack of a 40/50/10 layup is 40 plies; therefore the claimed limitation is taught. Furthermore, Rassaian discloses claim 1 limitation and corresponding claim 6 limitation of “increasing the allowable load region via magnification of the basic laminated structure” as performing an optimized inversion process where an increase in thickness is an increase in plies, changing the thickness of the laminate having an equivalent thickness of the plies, and limiting the amount that the maximum increase in values of the thickness. While the applicant has pointed out examples in Rassaian where amount of plies decreases over the iterations for an applied load, this is merely an embodiment of Rassaian and was not relied upon in the rejection. The embodiment of Rassaian which provides an increase to the thickness which results in a increase to amount of plies is what was provided in and relied upon by the rejection.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claims 1 and 6 are disclosed in Rassaian. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 and 6 as anticipate by Rassaian is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8-9, filed July 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 5-9 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amended claims and provided support from specification. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0283648 A1 Akiba, Kousaburou teaches making a composite laminated material by a fiber orientation for which an allowable range of strength yields a minimized weight.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights