DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0330859 (hereinafter “Soula”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0255784 (hereinafter “Duval”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0257102 (hereinafter “Butler”).Regarding claim 1 Soula teaches a method for manufacturing a composite component with a preform with a hybrid layup (abstract and title). Soula teaches the method for manufacturing the preform 2 includes providing a first surface reinforcing layer 21 and a second surface reinforcing layer 23 comprising plies made of braided dry fibers impregnated with a resin (at least one braided composite layer configured to form a first ply, wherein the at least one braided composite layer is formed of a plurality of braided pre-impregnated fiber tows) (abstract; paragraphs [0024], [0035] – [0038] and [0043]; and Figures 2 and 3). Soula teaches the resin includes a mix of thermosetting resin and thermoplastic resin (paragraph [0064]), which corresponds to pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber tows. Soula teaches the method of manufacturing the preform 2, which subsequently forms the composite component (forming a hybrid composite laminate), includes forming a load bearing layer (second ply) 22 of unidirectional tapes (paragraphs [0016] and [0045] – [0047]), and stacking a plurality of plies, wherein the plurality of plies comprise the first and second surface reinforcing layers (first ply) 21, 23 and the load bearing layer (second ply) 22 (Figures 2 and 3; and paragraphs [0048] and [0053] – [0058]). Soula also teaches the load bearing layer (second ply) 22 provides reinforcement to the finished article (configured to reinforce the laminate along its dimensions) (paragraph [0045]). In addition, Soula teaches the composite material member manufactured from the method disclosed herein resists the operational forces to which said structural member is subjected, while optimizing the total number of plies in the composite structure which, in turn, optimizes its thickness, weight and stiffness (paragraph [0070]). Soula also teaches the load-bearing layer (second ply) 22 comprises superimposed plies comprising dry fibers whose type and orientations are determined according to the required mechanical properties of the frame to be built. The calculation of the number of plies and the orientations of fibers in each successive ply is part of known calculation methods applied to thin composite material members (paragraph [0046]). Soula does not explicitly teach increasing stiffness in one or more respective areas of the hybrid composite laminate by placing a higher number of second plies in the one or more respective areas, and placing a lower number of second plies in one or more other portions of the hybrid composite laminate. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the total number of plies (including a placement of more second plies) required in areas (one or more respective areas) where an increase of stiffness would be required to resist the operational forces to which the manufactured structural member is subjected. Soula does not explicitly teach the load bearing layer (second ply) 22 is formed by arranging and aligning a plurality of slit tapes such that each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes is adjacent to one another, wherein each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes comprises a steered unidirectional composite slit tape, wherein each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes is steered to align with and follow a curved contour of the first ply. Duval teaches a method of using an automated fiber placement (AFP) machine 10 for laying a tape 16 on a surface along a path having at least one localized curved portion, the tape 16 being composed of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a including unidirectionally oriented fibers disposed side-by-side (arranging and aligning a plurality of slit tapes such that each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes is adjacent to one another) (abstract; paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0024] and [0026]; and Figure 4). Duval teaches the method of automated fiber placement may be used to form components of a rotorcraft 100, for example, a part or a whole of a fuselage 130 (paragraph [0014]). Duval teaches correlating the maximum speed, of the AFP machine 10, with its steering radius and the effective length allows to optimize the resulting angular deviation of each ply to respect the isotropy criteria while ensuring manufacturing constrains are respected (paragraph [0019]), which corresponds to each fiber tow (slit tape) 16a of the plurality of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a comprises a steered unidirectional composite slit tape. Duval teaches each consecutively disposed fiber tow (slit tape) 16a of the plurality of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a is steered to align with and follow a curved contour of the initially disposed fiber tow 16a (first ply) (paragraph [0016] and Figure 4), which corresponds to each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes is steered to align with and follow a curved contour of the first ply. Soula and Duval are analogous inventions in the field of preform manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Soula with the steered ply layup method, including the incorporation of the tape 16 structure, of Duval to: yield a preform having minimal defects while reducing manufacturing time; and/or to enable the preform of Soula to be useful in a curved composite part in a fuselage application. The combination of Soula and Duval corresponds to the claimed limitation requiring each slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes is configured to reinforce the hybrid composite laminate along the curved contour. The combination of Soula and Duval does not explicitly teach the adjacent slit tapes are spaced apart from one another. Butler teaches a method of manufacturing a composite laminate including laying up bands (slit tapes) of composite material in layers to form a composite layup. At least one layer may have at least one gap (adjacent slit tapes are spaced apart from one another) between an adjacent pair of bands (slit tapes). The gap may extend continuously along a lengthwise direction of the band. The gap in two or more of the layers may be fluidly interconnected and may form at least one breather path that opens to an exterior of the composite layup (abstract). Butler teaches the breather paths vent entrapped moisture, air, and/or volatiles from the interior of the composite layup, which decreases the porosity of the composite layup and improves the mechanical properties of the composite laminate using an automated fiber placement manufacturing process while not relying on costly autoclave processing (paragraphs [0023], [0025] and [0049]). Butler teaches the present method may also be implemented for forming engineered gaps 160 in other types of composite layups 100 including non-traditional layups (e.g., a non-quasi-isotropic layup) and steered fiber layups (paragraph [0030]). Butler teaches the gaps 160 are formed between one or more pair of adjacent bands 126 (paragraph [0050], and Figures 3 and 12). Soula, Duval and Butler are analogous inventions in the field of preform manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of making the composite component from the combination of Soula and Duval with the engineered gaps between adjacent bands (slit tapes) of Butler to improve mechanical properties of the manufactured part by venting entrapped moisture, air, and/or volatiles from the interior of the composite layup without the use of costly autoclave processing.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Duval teaches the arranging and aligning of the plurality of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a comprises aligning each respective fiber tow (slit tape) 16a along a respective contour line 20, axis A, and/or radius of curvature R of the preform (Figure 4, and paragraphs [0016] – [0018]).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Duval teaches the arranging and aligning the plurality of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a comprises arranging and aligning each respective fiber tow (slit tape) 16a along a respective tape path 20 that corresponds to a respective contour line of a composite part formed from the preform (Figure 4; and paragraphs [0014] – [0016]).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Soula teaches the first surface reinforcing layer 21 and a second surface reinforcing layer 23 comprising plies made of braided dry fibers and resin (a plurality of first plies formed from a plurality of braided composite layers) (paragraphs [0024], [0035] – [0038] and [0043]; and Figures 2 and 3). With regard to the fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a, Duval teaches a plurality of (second) plies, wherein each respective (second) ply of the plurality of (second) plies comprise a respective plurality of fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a arranged and aligned adjacent to one another (Figure 4; and paragraphs [0003] and [0016]).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Duval teaches the composite structure (hybrid composite laminate from the combination of Soula and Duval) made from method using the AFP 10 machine is curved, and may be used to form a curved portion of a fuselage 130 (the resulting composite part formed by consolidating the plies of the hybrid composite laminate from the combination of Soula and Duval is also curved) (Figure 1; and paragraphs [0013] and [0014]).Regarding claim 7 In addition, Duval teaches the method includes using the AFP machine which is used to lay a tape 16 (made from the fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a) on a surface along a path having at least one localized curved portion (paragraph [0003]), which reads on an embodiment where more than one localized curved portion is present and meets the limitations from the claim requiring arranging and aligning at least one slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes along a first curve or contour of the hybrid composite laminate, and arranging and aligning at least one slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes along a second curve or contour of the hybrid composite laminate.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Duval teaches the composite structure made from method using the AFP 10 machine may be used to form a curved portion of a fuselage 130, where the fuselage 130 represents the body of the rotorcraft which is coupled to rotor system 110 (paragraphs [0013] and [0014]). Duval illustrates the structure of the fuselage 130 includes different surfaces (parts of the fuselage comprising the aforementioned fiber tows (slit tapes) 16a) which are present in a plurality of planes, where at least two planes (labeled as “plane 1” and “plane 2”) intersect each other (Annotated Figure 1, shown below), which corresponds to arranging and aligning at least one slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes in a first plane; and arranging and aligning at least one slit tape of the plurality of slit tapes in a second plane, wherein the second plane intersects the first plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9 In addition, Soula illustrates the first surface reinforcing layer 21 and the second surface reinforcing layer 23 (at least one braided composite layer) each have a width (braided layer width) (Figures 2 and 3). Duval also illustrates each respective fiber tow (slit tape) 16a has a respective width (tape width) (Figure 4). The combination of Soula and Duval does not explicitly teach the tape width is less than 50% of the braided layer width. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate width for each of the fiber tow 16a (tape width) and the first surface reinforcing layer 21 and/or the second surface reinforcing layer 23 (braided layer width) using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a preform exhibiting preferential curvature and dimensions required for the manufactured composite component. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claim 10 In addition, Soula illustrates positioning at least one load bearing layer (second ply) 22 interspersed among a plurality of stacked first and second surface reinforcing layers 21, 23 (first plies) (Figures 2 and 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soula, Duval and Butler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3 756 867 A1 (hereinafter “Ogale”).Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. As previously mentioned, Soula teaches the method for manufacturing the preform 2 includes providing a first surface reinforcing layer 21 and a second surface reinforcing layer 23 comprising plies made of braided dry fibers impregnated with a resin (at least one braided composite layer configured to form a first ply, wherein the at least one braided composite layer is formed of a plurality of braided pre-impregnated fiber tows) (abstract; paragraphs [0024], [0035] – [0038] and [0043]; and Figures 2 and 3). Soula teaches the resin includes a mix of thermosetting resin and thermoplastic resin (paragraph [0064]), which corresponds to pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber tows. In addition, Soula is silent with regards to specific methods of forming the braided first and/or second surface reinforcing layers 21, 23 (at least one braided composite layer), therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional methods. Ogale provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to create a braided layer by braiding a plurality of fiber tows to form a braided tube 740 around a mandrel 730, and cutting the braided tube with a knife 760 to form the braided layer (Figure 7 and 9; and paragraphs [0033], [0036], and [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the braided first and/or second surface reinforcing layers 21, 23 (at least one braided composite layer) by braiding a plurality of pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber tows to form a braided tube, and cutting the braided tube to form the braided layer, as taught by Ogale, motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of a manufacturing processes useful in the construction of a braided fabric layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soula, Duval and Butler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0243860 (hereinafter “Kismarton”).Regarding claim 11 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Soula illustrates an embodiment where the load bearing layer (each respective slit tape from the plurality of slit tapes) 122 has a respective tape length that is less than an overall length of the composite component (length corresponding to the dimension of 121 and 123) (Figure 3). Soula also teaches the layers may be assembled by stitching (paragraph [0053]). Soula does not explicitly teach forming the composite component (hybrid composite laminate) includes stacking the plurality of plies by locally inserting one or more load bearing layer (second plies) 22 of unidirectional tapes among a plurality of first and second surface reinforcing layers (first plies) 21, 23, such that each load bearing layer (second ply) 22 forms a partial layer of the composite component (hybrid composite laminate). Kismarton teaches a composite stringer and skin structures comprising plies made of unidirectionally oriented fibers (abstract and paragraph [0018]). Kismarton teaches interleaving of unidirectionally oriented fibers from adjacent layers (unidirectionally oriented second ply forms a partial layer of a composite component) can bond adjacent layers to each other (paragraphs [0021] and [0024]; and Figures 2 and 3). Soula and Kismarton are analogous inventions in the field of manufactured preforms. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the stitching process of Soula with the interleaving process of Kismarton to provide an integral bond between the load bearing layer 22 and the first and second surface reinforcing layers (first plies) 21, 23.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soula, Duval and Butler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Number 10,434,726 (hereinafter “Hickman”).Regarding claim 13 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Soula, Duval and Butler does not explicitly teach draping the hybrid composite laminate onto a mold or tooling and stamp forming a composite part. Hickman teaches thermoplastic composite parts are produced by automated fiber placement (AFP) followed by stamp forming a layup having tailored fiber orientations. The tailored fiber orientations are achieved by tow steering and result in a layup that does not wrinkle during forming (abstract). Hickman teaches stamp formed thermoplastic composite (TPC) parts are being used with increasing frequency because of their advantages over comparable parts made from thermoset resins. Generally, stamp forming of TPC parts allows for lower cost and faster processing (column 1, lines 16-20). Hickman teaches the disclosed embodiments provide stamp forming of small and/or complex TPC parts using optimized, tailored blanks automatically laid up using fiber steering to achieve desired fiber orientations, either in localized areas or throughout the part. The ability to achieve desired fiber orientations through fiber steering allows consolidated blanks to be stamp formed to net-shape without wrinkling or bunching (column 1, lines 48-55). Hickman teaches the laid up blank is provided in a stamp forming tool (draping a laminate onto a tooling and stamp forming a composite part) (Figures 1, 3, 8 and 12-14; and column 2, lines 47-67, column 3, lines 10-20, and column 5, lines 3-23). Soula, Duval, Butler and Hickman are analogous inventions in the field of manufacturing of composite parts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the molding process from the combination of Soula, Duval and Butler with the stamp forming process of Hickman to provide a curing process which allows for lower cost, faster processing, and elimination of wrinkling or bunching issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued none of the cited references teach or suggest providing a first ply formed of a braided composite layer having a plurality of braided pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber tows. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends Soula teaches, as is highlighted in the rejection of record, the dry fiber is impregnated with a resin matrix to make the preform, which corresponds to providing a first ply formed of a braided composite layer having a plurality of braided pre-impregnated fiber tows. Soula also teaches the resin matrix includes a mixture of thermosetting and thermoplastic resins, which corresponds to pre-impregnated thermoplastic fiber tows. The applicant argued, as amended, claim 1 recites that each slit tape of the second ply is steered to align with and follow a curved contour of the braided first ply, which is not taught in any of the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Soula teaches stacking a plurality of plies, wherein the plurality of plies includes the first and second surface reinforcing layers (first ply) 21, 23 and the load bearing layer (second ply) 22, and Duval teaches a method of steering plies with an automated fiber placement (AFP) machine which aligns with adjacent plies to yield a preform having minimal defects while reducing manufacturing time. It is the combined teaching of Soula and Duval which meets the limitation highlighted by the applicant. The applicant argued the prior art references do not teach or suggest increasing the stiffness in one or more respective areas of the resulting hybrid composite laminate by placing a higher number of second plies of steered unidirectional tapes in the one or more respective areas, and placing a lower number of second plies in one or more other portions of the hybrid composite laminate. The examiner respectfully submits the prior art references do not explicitly teach the limitation in question; however, Soula does teach (in paragraphs [0046] and [0070]) optimizing the total number of plies in the composite structure which is required to resist the operational forces to which said structural member is subjected, and the required mechanical properties of the frame to be built. Therefore, the examiner respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to place additional plies (such as the load-bearing layer (second ply) 22 of Soula) in areas of the manufactured structural member where the required mechanical properties which resist the operational forces are expected to be greater. The applicant argued one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Soula, Duval, and Butler because: (1) Soula does not disclose steered tapes, only straight tapes which would not be possible to produce curved parts; and (2) Butler is relied for teaching engineered gaps between straight tapes, while Duval expressly teaches avoiding gaps between adjacent steered tapes. Regarding (1), the examiner agrees that manufacturing a curved portion using straight tapes would cause manufacturing defects, such as wrinkling. However, the rejection of record contemplates modifying the method of Soula with the method of Duval to manufacture a curved portion which would not necessarily have the same defects as what would be present in Soula if the plies of Soula were bent, for example, to form a curved portion. In other words, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record because the modification proposed in the rejection of record would modify the very nature of the tapes of Soula to be capable of being formed by the AFP machine and resulting in the curved contour disclosed by Duval. Regarding (2), Duval’s teaching of avoiding gaps is in regards to avoiding manufacturing defects, where the engineered gaps disclosed by Butler are not considered defects; but rather are intentionally formed to improve mechanical properties of the manufactured part by venting entrapped moisture, air, and/or volatiles from the interior of the composite layup without the use of costly autoclave processing. Moreover, it is the position of the examiner that the spaced apart adjacent tapes on the upper surface of the composite laminate from Butler are mated with each other via the underlying layers which provides additional evidence that the combination of Butler with Soula and Duval is proper. The applicant argued there is no valid rationale to support the Office action’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the method from the combination of Soula and Duval with the engineered gaps of Butler to improve mechanical properties by venting entrapped moisture, air and/or volatiles from the interior of the composite layup without the use of costly autoclave processing because this statement has no connection to the teachings of Soula or Duval. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Butler explicitly recites this benefit (venting of moisture, air, and/or volatiles) which occurs from the formation of the engineered gaps results in a relatively low porosity of the composite laminate which improves its mechanical properties (paragraph [0023]), and the method includes out of autoclave processing (paragraph [0024]), which is recognized as being a cost saving measure as well as permitting faster production times (paragraphs [0003] and [0025]). Therefore, there is sufficient teaching and motivation for why a person having ordinary skill in the art would modify the method from the combination of Soula and Duval with the engineered gaps of Butler. Moreover, there is no requirement that the other prior art references must recognize the same problem highlighted by a different prior art reference. In other words, Soula and Duval not discussing a problem of entrapped moisture, air, an/or volatiles from the interior of the article is not sufficient in showing that the combination of references is not appropriate. The remaining arguments are directed to dependent claims 6, 11 and 13, where the applicant presented the position that the additional references used, Ogale, Kismarton and Hickman, respectfully, do not overcome the alleged deficiencies of the combination of Soula, Duval, and Butler. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends the deficiencies highlighted by the applicant have been addressed and claims 6, 11 and 13 are unpatentable for at least the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783