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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “As now explicitly recited in Claim 1, the SOR is "equal to the number of through thickness overlaps in the equidistant section divided by the number of local laminate plies in the equidistant section." The numerator is a count of through-thickness tow overlap accumulations formed by the plurality of plies at a given cross-sectional location along the part. The denominator is the number of local laminate plies in that section-not the tow width. The SOR thus characterizes the accumulated overlap density across the entire laminate stack at discretized cross-sectional locations along the length of the part.”
However, Moore discloses wherein the minimized overlap (“optimizing overlaps”) for each equisdistant section is equal to the number of through thickness overlaps in the equidistant section divided by the number of local laminate plies in the equidistant section (see paragraph 0048, disclosing “For example, optimizing overlaps 144 may include trimming or cutting first ends 138 and second ends 140 to ensure the desired amount of overlaps 144. In some cases, first ends 138 and second ends 140 may be trimmed to ensure about 50 percent overlap. Optimizing overlaps 144 may include optimizing the total area of overlaps 144. Optimizing gaps 146 may include reducing the total area of gaps 146 to within selected tolerances while also optimizing overlaps 144.” See also paragraph 0056, disclosing “Further, layup plan 154 may identify and/or be based on end parameters or goals for composite laminate 102, parameters based on … a desired percentage of overlaps, a desired percentage of gaps, a desired overlap to gap ratio,…”).
Additionally, Drumheller, in paragraph 0091 teaches a ratio of tows to tow width, which is directly related to a ratio of tows to plies, as each tow width corresponds directly to a ply.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 20190389149 A1) and Drumheller (US 20190030835 A1).
As to claim 1, Moore discloses a method for forming a composite part, the method comprising: rendering a layup model (see claim 1, reciting “generating a layup plan”) for placing a plurality of plies in an automated fiber placement (AFP) process (see paragraph 0027, disclosing “The layup of each section may include steering, by an automated fiber placement (AFP) system or machine, the tows that form each section along a path that is substantially parallel to a corresponding contour or curve.” ), the layup model comprising a plurality of substantially equidistant sections along a length of the layup model (see paragraph 0093, disclosing “The spacing between each horizontally adjacent pair may be equal or different, depending on the implementation.”), the plurality of plies being arranged such that each of the substantially equidistant sections has a minimized overlap within a pre-determined range (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “In particular, the illustrative embodiments provide methods and apparatuses for manufacturing a composite laminate having a complex contour shape and an optimized amount of overlaps and gaps between plies of the composite laminate.”); and
placing, via the automated fiber placement (AFP) process (see paragraph 0027, disclosing “The layup of each section may include steering, by an automated fiber placement (AFP) system or machine, the tows that form each section along a path that is substantially parallel to a corresponding contour or curve.” See also paragraph 0033, disclosing “In one illustrative example, tow placement system 112 takes the form of an automated fiber placement system, which may be a computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine.”), the plurality of plies according to the layup model to thereby form the composite part (see claim 1, reciting “laying up the plurality of plies according to the layup plan to form the composite laminate”),
wherein the minimized overlap (“optimizing overlaps”) for each equisdistant section is equal to the number of through thickness overlaps in the equidistant section (see paragraph 0048, disclosing “For example, optimizing overlaps 144 may include trimming or cutting first ends 138 and second ends 140 to ensure the desired amount of overlaps 144. In some cases, first ends 138 and second ends 140 may be trimmed to ensure about 50 percent overlap. Optimizing overlaps 144 may include optimizing the total area of overlaps 144. Optimizing gaps 146 may include reducing the total area of gaps 146 to within selected tolerances while also optimizing overlaps 144.” See also paragraph 0056, disclosing “Further, layup plan 154 may identify and/or be based on end parameters or goals for composite laminate 102, parameters based on … a desired percentage of overlaps, a desired percentage of gaps, a desired overlap to gap ratio,…”).
See especially Figure 12 and paragraphs 0048, 0131-0135, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
792
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0048] For example, merge zone 142 may include overlaps 144 of at least a portion of first ends 138 and at least a portion of second ends 140. Further, merge zone 142 may include gaps 146 between at least a portion of first ends 138 and at least a portion of second ends 140. Tow placement system 112 may be controlled to optimize merge zone 142 by optimizing overlaps 144 and gaps 146. For example, optimizing overlaps 144 may include trimming or cutting first ends 138 and second ends 140 to ensure the desired amount of overlaps 144. In some cases, first ends 138 and second ends 140 may be trimmed to ensure about 50 percent overlap. Optimizing overlaps 144 may include optimizing the total area of overlaps 144. Optimizing gaps 146 may include reducing the total area of gaps 146 to within selected tolerances while also optimizing overlaps 144.
…
[0056] Layup plan 154 may include, for example, without limitation, the orientations at which plies 110 are to be laid up, start and stop times, locations at which tows are to be cut, total applied bandwidth, angular path variations, trace path variations, ply boundaries, other types of information, or a combination thereof. Further, layup plan 154 may identify and/or be based on end parameters or goals for composite laminate 102, parameters based on the loads expected for composite object 104, the number of plies 110 needed for composite laminate 102, the orientations for plies 110, the orientations of the various sections of tows used to form single plies of plies 110, a desired percentage of overlaps, a desired percentage of gaps, a desired overlap to gap ratio, locations for merge zones 150, a location of neutral axis 152, a location of centerline 120, the desired relationships between merge zones 150 from ply to ply, or a combination thereof.
…
[0131] With reference now to FIG. 12, a flowchart of a process for generating a layup plan is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Process 1200 illustrated in FIG. 12 may be implemented using, for example, control system 114 in FIG. 1 to generate layup plan 154 in FIG. 1. Process 1200 may be used to implement operation 1002 described in FIG. 10.
[0132] Process 1200 begins by generating a layup plan for laying up a plurality of plies (operation 1202). Next, a laying up of the plurality of plies to form a composite laminate is modeled according to the layup plan (operation 1204).
[0133] Thereafter, a set of parameters for the modeled composite laminate are evaluated (operation 1206). In operation 1206, the set of parameters may include, for example, a degree of overlaps and gaps within each baseline ply modeled, a surface quality of the composite laminate, thickness information for the composite information, structural parameters, a merge zone width, or a combination thereof.
[0134] A determination is then made as to whether the layup plan needs to be modified based on the evaluation of the set of parameters (operation 1208). If the layup plan does not need to be modified, process 1200 terminates. If, however, the layup plan does need to be modified, the process modifies the layup plan to generate a modified layup plan (operation 1210), with the process then returning to operation 1204 described above. Operation 1204 is then performed using the modified layup plan.
[0135] The modification of the layup plan in operation 1210 may include modifying the location for one or more merge zones. In some embodiments, the layup plan may be modified by changing the times or locations at which tow ends are cut during the layup of one or more particular plies within the composite laminate. The layup plan may be modified by modifying any of the parameters identified by or taken into account by the layup plan.
See especially claim 1, 12 and 13, disclosing:
1. A method for forming a composite laminate, the method comprising:
generating a layup plan for laying up a plurality of plies having a plurality of merge zones, each ply of the plurality of plies having a corresponding merge zone at which ends of a first plurality of tows for the each ply and ends of a second plurality of tows for the each ply meet, locations of the plurality of merge zones being offset relative to each other through a thickness of the composite laminate; and
laying up the plurality of plies according to the layup plan to form the composite laminate.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the layup plan comprises: generating the layup plan such that at least two merge zones of the plurality of merge zones are vertically offset such that overlaps and gaps within the at least two merge zone are not directly stacked on top of each other within the composite laminate, wherein the at least two merge zones are either adjacent to each other or separated by one or more other plies within the composite laminate.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein laying up the plurality of plies comprises: laying up the plurality of plies according to the layup plan using an automated fiber placement system.
See also Figures 3 and 4, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
964
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1022
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moore, however, only discloses a minimized overlap and does not disclose the full limitation of “the plurality of plies being arranged such that each of the substantially equidistant sections has a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within a pre-determined range” or “wherein the SOR for each equidistant section is equal to the number of through thickness overlaps in the equidistant section divided by the number of local laminate plies in the equidistant section”, although Moore does disclose that the parameters can include closely related parameters such as “a desired percentage of overlaps, a desired percentage of gaps, a desired overlap to gap ratio”. However, although Moore attempts to minimize overlaps and overlaps relative to gaps, Moore does not relate the overlaps to the number of plies.
However, Drumheller discloses and makes obvious the full limitation of “the plurality of plies being arranged such that each of the substantially equidistant sections has a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within a pre-determined range”. See especially Figure 2 and paragraphs 0050-55, disclosing:
PNG
media_image4.png
766
1160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0050] The system 100 is capable of producing destructive interference of deviations without introducing (or with a marginal introduction of) constructive interference of deviations. Thus, the deviations (due to the gaps and the overlaps) of the part are confined to a relatively small region of the part having a lateral dimension of one tow width. Additionally, in particular implementations, the deviations have a magnitude of 1 ply thickness. The system 100 generates parts with less severe deviations and the deviations are contained in a smaller area, as compared to parts produced by conventional methods. Additionally, thicker parts may be produced by the system 100 without an increase in thickness deviation magnitude and without an increase in deviation confinement region, because the deviation confinement region and magnitude are independent of the number of plies. Thus, parts produced by the system 100 require less post processing. The reduction in post processing reduces the weight of the finalized part and reduces costs and time associated with producing a finalized part. Additionally, the finalized part may have increased strength and fatigue properties as compared to parts made by conventional methods.
[0051] FIG. 2 illustrates diagrams 202 and 204 of tows applied by an automated fiber placement machine, such as the machine 106 of FIG. 1. In FIG. 2, “L” denotes a convergence overlap ratio 220, “λ” denotes an absolute amount of overlap 230 (e.g., overlap in a lateral direction), and “W” denotes a tow width 228 (also referred to as tape width). The convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) is defined by the absolute amount of overlap 230 (λ) divided by the tow width 228 (W), L=λ/W. A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0.5 may contribute to generating a symmetrical pattern. A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).
[0052] In the diagram 202, an illustrative example of tow overlap is illustrated to explain various variables and parameters of the diagram 204. The diagram 202 includes five tows, tows A-E. Tows A-C correspond to the multiple first tows (uppers tows) of the first course 186 and are offset from and overlap with tows D and E which correspond to multiple second tows (lower tows) of the second course 188. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the tows A-C are illustrated as being spaced apart from one another for clarity.
[0053] Each of the tows A-E have the tow width 228 of “W”. Each tow of the first tows A-C overlaps the second tows D and E by a different amount, overlaps 222-226. Tow A has a first overlap 222 (λ.sub.1) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and does not overlap tow E, resulting in a first convergence overlap ratio L.sub.1 of 1. Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333. Tow C has a third overlap 226 (λ.sub.3) and overlaps a portion (e.g., half) of tow D and does not overlap tow E, resulting in a third convergence overlap ratio L.sub.3 of 0.5.
[0054] The diagram 204 illustrates a schematic view of a single ply (e.g., the first ply 182 of FIG. 1) with a longitudinal convergence zone (e.g., an internal merge seam) in the middle and oriented in a longitudinal direction. The longitudinal convergence zone is positioned (or formed between) the first course 186 and the second course 188). In the diagram 204, black portions represent tow overlap (double thickness) and white portions represent gaps (0 thickness). The diagram 204 depicts tows arranged in a pattern 212 (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern). The pattern 212 may include or correspond to the pattern 109 of FIG. 1.
[0055] In the diagram 204, “H” denotes an in-ply (intraply) longitudinal (e.g., horizontal) offset ratio, “P” denotes a period 234 of the pattern 212, and “δ” denotes a distance of offset (“offset distance 236”) of the pattern 212. In the diagram 204, the pattern 212 (e.g., an arrangement of the tows) is not symmetrical. The asymmetrical tow arrangement of the pattern 212 creates two convergence overlap ratios 242 and 244, “L.sub.upper” 242 corresponding to upper deviations caused by lower tows and “L.sub.lower” 244 corresponding to lower deviations caused by upper tows. As depicted in the diagram 204, the convergence overlap ratio L.sub.lower 244 of the pattern 212 of the tows is approximately 0.3 and the convergence overlap ratio L.sub.upper 242 of the pattern 212 of the tows is approximately 0.7. The convergence overlap ratios 242 and 244 are based on the amount of overlap (λ) at each location.
…
[0090] In some implementations, the first ply includes first gaps and first overlaps, the second ply includes second gaps and second overlaps, and the shifted pattern of the second ply generates destructive interference between the gaps and the overlaps of the first ply and the second ply. For example, at least a portion of a first gap of the first ply is canceled out by a first overlap of the second ply. In a particular implementation, deviations of the first ply do not create constructive interference with deviations of the second ply.
Drumheller, in paragraph 0091 teaches a ratio of tows to tow width, which is directly related to a ratio of tows to plies, as each tow width corresponds directly to a ply.
[0091] In some implementations, the pattern includes or corresponds to a symmetrical merge pattern. In a particular implementation, the symmetrical merge pattern includes a longitudinal offset of 0.5 and a ratio of tow overlap to tow width of 0.5 and includes a symmetrical pattern of gaps and overlaps. In some implementations, the gaps have a first area, the overlaps have the first area, and a shape of the first area of the gaps and overlaps corresponds to a right triangle. Additionally, the gaps have a first volume, the overlaps have the first volume, and the gaps and overlaps correspond to a right triangular prism. In a particular implementation, a first gap and a first overlap of the first ply are offset from a second gap and a second overlap of the first ply by an offset distance in the lateral direction.
Drumheller discloses the benefits of the overlap ratio, teaching in paragraphs 0077-78 that:
[0077] By generating destructive interference (and reducing constructive interference) thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude and without an increase in deviation confinement region area, as shown in FIGS. 5 and 7, because the deviation magnitude and confinement region area are independent of the number of plies (the number of plies having the pattern). In contrast, both alternative methods increase the area of the region containing the deviations, increase the magnitude of the deviations, or a combination thereof, when adding additional plies having the pattern.
[0078] As explained above, the non-interference method varies the positions of the deviations (due to gaps and overlaps) from ply to ply such that the deviations are not compounded (do not form constructive interference) when additional plies are added, and the uncontrolled-interference method aligns (partially) the positions of the deviations to compound (form constructive interference) and confine the region of deviations to a relatively small area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full limitation of “the plurality of plies being arranged such that each of the substantially equidistant sections has a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within a pre-determined range” or “wherein the SOR for each equidistant section is equal to the number of through thickness overlaps in the equidistant section divided by the number of local laminate plies in the equidistant section” as taught by Drumheller such that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
As to claim 2, Drumheller as incorporated discloses wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values less than 2.0. See paragraph 0051, disclosing “A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).” and See paragraph 0053, disclosing “Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333.”
As to claim 3, Drumheller as incorporated discloses wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values of 1.2 to 1.9. See paragraph 0053, disclosing “Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333.”
As to claim 4, Moore and Drumheller do not disclose wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections.
However, Drumheller discloses minimizing overlaps. Drumheller as incorporated discloses wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values less than 2.0. See paragraph 0051, disclosing “A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).” and See paragraph 0053, disclosing “Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333.” Additionally, taking a mean or average in order to minimize overlaps would have been routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II) of the known minimization of overlaps in Drumheller because achieving wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections would enable that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections as a routine optimization of minimizing the overlap ratios by Drumheller such that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
As to claim 5, Moore and Drumheller both disclose wherein the plurality of plies comprises two or more plies having different orientations. See Moore paragraph 0040, disclosing:
[0040] As one illustrative example, a first portion of plies 110 may be of baseline orientation 122; a second portion of plies 110 may have a 45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; a third portion of plies 110 may have a 90 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; and a fourth portion of plies 110 may have a −45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122. In some cases, the orientations of the plies within composite laminate 102 may follow a sequence (e.g., baseline, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and −45 degrees) that repeats.
Drumheller also discloses similar, see paragraph 0046, disclosing:
[0046] In some implementations, the commands 174 further cause the machine 106 to form one or more plies of the set of plies 180 having a second orientation (nominal orientation) that is different from the orientation of the first ply and the second ply. As an illustrative example, the machine 106 may form a 0 degree ply, followed by a +45 degree ply, followed by a 90 degree ply, followed by a −45 degree ply, etc. The one or more other plies of the set of plies 180 may be formed as described herein. In some implementations, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192. In a particular implementation, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192 to achieve quasi-isotropic properties (isotropic properties in-plane). A part containing interleaved plies of different orientations has similar material properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, etc.) in all directions in a plane of the plies.
As to claim 6, Moore and Drumheller both disclose wherein the two or more plies have orientations that differ by less than 90°. See Moore, paragraph 0040, disclosing:
[0040] As one illustrative example, a first portion of plies 110 may be of baseline orientation 122; a second portion of plies 110 may have a 45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; a third portion of plies 110 may have a 90 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; and a fourth portion of plies 110 may have a −45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122. In some cases, the orientations of the plies within composite laminate 102 may follow a sequence (e.g., baseline, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and −45 degrees) that repeats.
Drumheller also discloses similar, see paragraph 0046, disclosing:
[0046] In some implementations, the commands 174 further cause the machine 106 to form one or more plies of the set of plies 180 having a second orientation (nominal orientation) that is different from the orientation of the first ply and the second ply. As an illustrative example, the machine 106 may form a 0 degree ply, followed by a +45 degree ply, followed by a 90 degree ply, followed by a −45 degree ply, etc. The one or more other plies of the set of plies 180 may be formed as described herein. In some implementations, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192. In a particular implementation, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192 to achieve quasi-isotropic properties (isotropic properties in-plane). A part containing interleaved plies of different orientations has similar material properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, etc.) in all directions in a plane of the plies.
As to claim 7, Moore and Drumheller both disclose wherein the two or more plies have orientations that differ by about 15° to about 45°. See Moore, paragraph 0040, disclosing:
[0040] As one illustrative example, a first portion of plies 110 may be of baseline orientation 122; a second portion of plies 110 may have a 45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; a third portion of plies 110 may have a 90 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; and a fourth portion of plies 110 may have a −45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122. In some cases, the orientations of the plies within composite laminate 102 may follow a sequence (e.g., baseline, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and −45 degrees) that repeats.
Drumheller also discloses similar, see paragraph 0046, disclosing:
[0046] In some implementations, the commands 174 further cause the machine 106 to form one or more plies of the set of plies 180 having a second orientation (nominal orientation) that is different from the orientation of the first ply and the second ply. As an illustrative example, the machine 106 may form a 0 degree ply, followed by a +45 degree ply, followed by a 90 degree ply, followed by a −45 degree ply, etc. The one or more other plies of the set of plies 180 may be formed as described herein. In some implementations, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192. In a particular implementation, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192 to achieve quasi-isotropic properties (isotropic properties in-plane). A part containing interleaved plies of different orientations has similar material properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, etc.) in all directions in a plane of the plies.
As to claim 8, Moore discloses a method for forming a composite part, the method comprising:
(a) providing a layup model (see claim 1, reciting “generating a layup plan”) of the composite part for placing a plurality of plies in an automated fiber placement (AFP) process (see paragraph 0027, disclosing “The layup of each section may include steering, by an automated fiber placement (AFP) system or machine, the tows that form each section along a path that is substantially parallel to a corresponding contour or curve.”);
(c) identifying a quantity of overlaps formed by the plurality of plies within each of the plurality of substantially equidistant sections (see paragraph 0093, disclosing “The spacing between each horizontally adjacent pair may be equal or different, depending on the implementation.”);
(d) calculating a minimized overlap within each of the plurality of substantially equidistant sections by dividing the quantity of overlaps within each section by the nominal through-thickness of the composite part within the corresponding section (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “In particular, the illustrative embodiments provide methods and apparatuses for manufacturing a composite laminate having a complex contour shape and an optimized amount of overlaps and gaps between plies of the composite laminate.”);
(e) modifying the layup model and repeating steps (b)-(d) until each of the plurality of sections has a minimized overlap within a pre-determined range, thereby producing a production model (see paragraph 0134, disclosing “If, however, the layup plan does need to be modified, the process modifies the layup plan to generate a modified layup plan (operation 1210), with the process then returning to operation 1204 described above”, and paragraph 0135, disclosing “In some embodiments, the layup plan may be modified by changing the times or locations at which tow ends are cut during the layup of one or more particular plies within the composite laminate. The layup plan may be modified by modifying any of the parameters identified by or taken into account by the layup plan.”); and
(f) placing, via the automated fiber placement (AFP) process (see paragraph 0027, disclosing “The layup of each section may include steering, by an automated fiber placement (AFP) system or machine, the tows that form each section along a path that is substantially parallel to a corresponding contour or curve.” See also paragraph 0033, disclosing “In one illustrative example, tow placement system 112 takes the form of an automated fiber placement system, which may be a computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine.”), the plurality of plies according to the production model to thereby form the composite part .
See especially Figure 12 and paragraphs 0131-0135, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
792
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0131] With reference now to FIG. 12, a flowchart of a process for generating a layup plan is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Process 1200 illustrated in FIG. 12 may be implemented using, for example, control system 114 in FIG. 1 to generate layup plan 154 in FIG. 1. Process 1200 may be used to implement operation 1002 described in FIG. 10.
[0132] Process 1200 begins by generating a layup plan for laying up a plurality of plies (operation 1202). Next, a laying up of the plurality of plies to form a composite laminate is modeled according to the layup plan (operation 1204).
[0133] Thereafter, a set of parameters for the modeled composite laminate are evaluated (operation 1206). In operation 1206, the set of parameters may include, for example, a degree of overlaps and gaps within each baseline ply modeled, a surface quality of the composite laminate, thickness information for the composite information, structural parameters, a merge zone width, or a combination thereof.
[0134] A determination is then made as to whether the layup plan needs to be modified based on the evaluation of the set of parameters (operation 1208). If the layup plan does not need to be modified, process 1200 terminates. If, however, the layup plan does need to be modified, the process modifies the layup plan to generate a modified layup plan (operation 1210), with the process then returning to operation 1204 described above. Operation 1204 is then performed using the modified layup plan.
[0135] The modification of the layup plan in operation 1210 may include modifying the location for one or more merge zones. In some embodiments, the layup plan may be modified by changing the times or locations at which tow ends are cut during the layup of one or more particular plies within the composite laminate. The layup plan may be modified by modifying any of the parameters identified by or taken into account by the layup plan.
See especially claim 1, 12 and 13, disclosing:
1. A method for forming a composite laminate, the method comprising:
generating a layup plan for laying up a plurality of plies having a plurality of merge zones, each ply of the plurality of plies having a corresponding merge zone at which ends of a first plurality of tows for the each ply and ends of a second plurality of tows for the each ply meet, locations of the plurality of merge zones being offset relative to each other through a thickness of the composite laminate; and
laying up the plurality of plies according to the layup plan to form the composite laminate.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the layup plan comprises: generating the layup plan such that at least two merge zones of the plurality of merge zones are vertically offset such that overlaps and gaps within the at least two merge zone are not directly stacked on top of each other within the composite laminate, wherein the at least two merge zones are either adjacent to each other or separated by one or more other plies within the composite laminate.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein laying up the plurality of plies comprises: laying up the plurality of plies according to the layup plan using an automated fiber placement system.
See also Figures 3 and 4, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
964
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1022
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moore, however, only discloses a minimized overlap and does not disclose the full limitations of “(b) designating a plurality of points along a length of the layup model, the plurality of points defining a plurality of substantially equidistant sections therebetween;”, “(d) calculating a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within each of the plurality of substantially equidistant sections by dividing the quantity of overlaps within each section by the nominal through-thickness of the composite part within the corresponding section” or “(e) modifying the layup model and repeating steps (b)-(d) until each of the plurality of sections has a SOR within a pre-determined range”
However, Drumheller discloses and makes obvious the full limitation of “(b) designating a plurality of points along a length of the layup model, the plurality of points defining a plurality of substantially equidistant sections therebetween;” (see paragraph 0039, disclosing points), “(d) calculating a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within each of the plurality of substantially equidistant sections by dividing the quantity of overlaps within each section by the nominal through-thickness of the composite part within the corresponding section” (see paragraphs 0050-55) or “(e) modifying the layup model and repeating steps (b)-(d) until each of the plurality of sections has a SOR within a pre-determined range”. See especially Figure 2 and paragraphs 0039, 0050-55, disclosing:
PNG
media_image4.png
766
1160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0039] For example, the control signals cause the machine 106 to apply first fiber tows 184 according to a pattern 109 to form a first ply 182 of a set of plies 180. The pattern 109 may include or correspond to parameters by which tows are aligned to form a particular ply or a portion of the particular ply. The parameters are described further with reference to FIG. 2. The pattern 109 may include or correspond to a starting point of a first tow or a starting point of a first deviation (due to an overlap or a gap) of the particular ply. The pattern 109 may have a corresponding pattern or arrangement of deviations, as further described herein. The control signals cause the machine 106 to apply second fiber tows 194 according to the pattern 109 to form a second ply 192 of the set of plies 180. The second ply 192 is formed over (overlies) the first ply 182. The pattern 109 of the second ply 192 is offset (shifted) relative to the pattern 109 of the first ply 182 by an offset distance based on a period of the first fiber tows 184 (e.g., the pattern 109 of the first fiber tows 184) and a number of plies having the pattern 109 in the set of plies 180.
…
[0050] The system 100 is capable of producing destructive interference of deviations without introducing (or with a marginal introduction of) constructive interference of deviations. Thus, the deviations (due to the gaps and the overlaps) of the part are confined to a relatively small region of the part having a lateral dimension of one tow width. Additionally, in particular implementations, the deviations have a magnitude of 1 ply thickness. The system 100 generates parts with less severe deviations and the deviations are contained in a smaller area, as compared to parts produced by conventional methods. Additionally, thicker parts may be produced by the system 100 without an increase in thickness deviation magnitude and without an increase in deviation confinement region, because the deviation confinement region and magnitude are independent of the number of plies. Thus, parts produced by the system 100 require less post processing. The reduction in post processing reduces the weight of the finalized part and reduces costs and time associated with producing a finalized part. Additionally, the finalized part may have increased strength and fatigue properties as compared to parts made by conventional methods.
[0051] FIG. 2 illustrates diagrams 202 and 204 of tows applied by an automated fiber placement machine, such as the machine 106 of FIG. 1. In FIG. 2, “L” denotes a convergence overlap ratio 220, “λ” denotes an absolute amount of overlap 230 (e.g., overlap in a lateral direction), and “W” denotes a tow width 228 (also referred to as tape width). The convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) is defined by the absolute amount of overlap 230 (λ) divided by the tow width 228 (W), L=λ/W. A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0.5 may contribute to generating a symmetrical pattern. A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).
[0052] In the diagram 202, an illustrative example of tow overlap is illustrated to explain various variables and parameters of the diagram 204. The diagram 202 includes five tows, tows A-E. Tows A-C correspond to the multiple first tows (uppers tows) of the first course 186 and are offset from and overlap with tows D and E which correspond to multiple second tows (lower tows) of the second course 188. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the tows A-C are illustrated as being spaced apart from one another for clarity.
[0053] Each of the tows A-E have the tow width 228 of “W”. Each tow of the first tows A-C overlaps the second tows D and E by a different amount, overlaps 222-226. Tow A has a first overlap 222 (λ.sub.1) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and does not overlap tow E, resulting in a first convergence overlap ratio L.sub.1 of 1. Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333. Tow C has a third overlap 226 (λ.sub.3) and overlaps a portion (e.g., half) of tow D and does not overlap tow E, resulting in a third convergence overlap ratio L.sub.3 of 0.5.
[0054] The diagram 204 illustrates a schematic view of a single ply (e.g., the first ply 182 of FIG. 1) with a longitudinal convergence zone (e.g., an internal merge seam) in the middle and oriented in a longitudinal direction. The longitudinal convergence zone is positioned (or formed between) the first course 186 and the second course 188). In the diagram 204, black portions represent tow overlap (double thickness) and white portions represent gaps (0 thickness). The diagram 204 depicts tows arranged in a pattern 212 (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern). The pattern 212 may include or correspond to the pattern 109 of FIG. 1.
[0055] In the diagram 204, “H” denotes an in-ply (intraply) longitudinal (e.g., horizontal) offset ratio, “P” denotes a period 234 of the pattern 212, and “δ” denotes a distance of offset (“offset distance 236”) of the pattern 212. In the diagram 204, the pattern 212 (e.g., an arrangement of the tows) is not symmetrical. The asymmetrical tow arrangement of the pattern 212 creates two convergence overlap ratios 242 and 244, “L.sub.upper” 242 corresponding to upper deviations caused by lower tows and “L.sub.lower” 244 corresponding to lower deviations caused by upper tows. As depicted in the diagram 204, the convergence overlap ratio L.sub.lower 244 of the pattern 212 of the tows is approximately 0.3 and the convergence overlap ratio L.sub.upper 242 of the pattern 212 of the tows is approximately 0.7. The convergence overlap ratios 242 and 244 are based on the amount of overlap (λ) at each location.
…
[0090] In some implementations, the first ply includes first gaps and first overlaps, the second ply includes second gaps and second overlaps, and the shifted pattern of the second ply generates destructive interference between the gaps and the overlaps of the first ply and the second ply. For example, at least a portion of a first gap of the first ply is canceled out by a first overlap of the second ply. In a particular implementation, deviations of the first ply do not create constructive interference with deviations of the second ply.
Drumheller, in paragraph 0091 teaches a ratio of tows to tow width, which is directly related to a ratio of tows to plies, as each tow width corresponds directly to a ply.
[0091] In some implementations, the pattern includes or corresponds to a symmetrical merge pattern. In a particular implementation, the symmetrical merge pattern includes a longitudinal offset of 0.5 and a ratio of tow overlap to tow width of 0.5 and includes a symmetrical pattern of gaps and overlaps. In some implementations, the gaps have a first area, the overlaps have the first area, and a shape of the first area of the gaps and overlaps corresponds to a right triangle. Additionally, the gaps have a first volume, the overlaps have the first volume, and the gaps and overlaps correspond to a right triangular prism. In a particular implementation, a first gap and a first overlap of the first ply are offset from a second gap and a second overlap of the first ply by an offset distance in the lateral direction.
Drumheller discloses the benefits of the overlap ratio, teaching in paragraphs 0077-78 that:
[0077] By generating destructive interference (and reducing constructive interference) thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude and without an increase in deviation confinement region area, as shown in FIGS. 5 and 7, because the deviation magnitude and confinement region area are independent of the number of plies (the number of plies having the pattern). In contrast, both alternative methods increase the area of the region containing the deviations, increase the magnitude of the deviations, or a combination thereof, when adding additional plies having the pattern.
[0078] As explained above, the non-interference method varies the positions of the deviations (due to gaps and overlaps) from ply to ply such that the deviations are not compounded (do not form constructive interference) when additional plies are added, and the uncontrolled-interference method aligns (partially) the positions of the deviations to compound (form constructive interference) and confine the region of deviations to a relatively small area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full limitation of “(b) designating a plurality of points along a length of the layup model, the plurality of points defining a plurality of substantially equidistant sections therebetween;”, “(d) calculating a specific overlap ratio (SOR) within each of the plurality of substantially equidistant sections by dividing the quantity of overlaps within each section by the nominal through-thickness of the composite part within the corresponding section” or “(e) modifying the layup model and repeating steps (b)-(d) until each of the plurality of sections has a SOR within a pre-determined range” as taught by Drumheller such that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
As to claim 9, Moore discloses wherein the identifying (c) comprises generating one or more planes perpendicular to a surface of the layup model and quantifying intersections (“merge zone” in Moore) of the one or more planes and the plurality of plies. See especially paragraph 0156, disclosing:
[0156] Thus, the different illustrative embodiments provide a method and apparatus laying up a baseline orientation (e.g., 0 degree orientation) ply relative to non-parallel contours (e.g., over a shape having non-parallel bends or tight radii). The ply may be created by laying up two different sections of tows in two different, non-parallel directions such that the ends of the tows of the two sections converge at a merge zone.
As to claim 10, Moore discloses wherein the modifying (e) comprises changing one or more of tow spacing, course spacing, quantity of tows in a given course, course steering, overlap distance, and/or translating the position of a sequence. See paragraph 0051 for adjusting spacing, paragraph 0133 for adjusting overlap distance, disclosing:
[0051] For example, tow placement system 112 may lay up each of baseline plies 148 such that the locations of merge zones 150 are shifted or spaced apart in the horizontal (or cross-sectional) direction. This spacing may be, for example, between about 0.1 inches and about 0.8 inches. In some cases, the spacing may be about 0.25 inches, or about 0.5 inches. Two adjacent baseline plies (e.g., a pair of baseline plies without any other baseline plies in between them), however, may be spaced apart much further, up to, for example, 5 inches, 7 inches, or even 10 inches apart.
…
[0133] Thereafter, a set of parameters for the modeled composite laminate are evaluated (operation 1206). In operation 1206, the set of parameters may include, for example, a degree of overlaps and gaps within each baseline ply modeled, a surface quality of the composite laminate, thickness information for the composite information, structural parameters, a merge zone width, or a combination thereof.
As to claim 11, Drumheller as incorporated discloses wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values less than 2.0. See paragraph 0051, disclosing “A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).” and See paragraph 0053, disclosing “Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333.”
As to claim 12, Moore and Drumheller do not disclose wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections.
However, Drumheller discloses minimizing overlaps. Drumheller as incorporated discloses wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values less than 2.0. See paragraph 0051, disclosing “A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of greater than 0.5 to 1 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more protrusions (“hides” more depressions inside protrusions). A convergence overlap ratio 220 (L) of 0 to less than 0.5 denotes a pattern (e.g., an asymmetrical pattern) that favors or generates more depressions (“hides” more protrusions inside depressions).” and See paragraph 0053, disclosing “Tow B has a second overlap 224 (λ.sub.2) and overlaps tow D completely (i.e., an entire tow width 228) and a portion of tow E, resulting in a second convergence overlap ratio L.sub.2 of 1.333.” Additionally, taking a mean or average in order to minimize overlaps would have been routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05 II) of the known minimization of overlaps in Drumheller because achieving wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections would enable that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the pre-determined range comprises SOR values within +/-50% of a mean of the SOR for all of the substantially equidistant sections as a routine optimization of minimizing the overlap ratios by Drumheller such that thicker parts may be produced without an increase in deviation magnitude.
As to claim 13, Moore and Drumheller both disclose wherein the plurality of plies comprises two or more plies having different orientations. See Moore paragraph 0040, disclosing:
[0040] As one illustrative example, a first portion of plies 110 may be of baseline orientation 122; a second portion of plies 110 may have a 45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; a third portion of plies 110 may have a 90 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; and a fourth portion of plies 110 may have a −45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122. In some cases, the orientations of the plies within composite laminate 102 may follow a sequence (e.g., baseline, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and −45 degrees) that repeats.
Drumheller also discloses similar, see paragraph 0046, disclosing:
[0046] In some implementations, the commands 174 further cause the machine 106 to form one or more plies of the set of plies 180 having a second orientation (nominal orientation) that is different from the orientation of the first ply and the second ply. As an illustrative example, the machine 106 may form a 0 degree ply, followed by a +45 degree ply, followed by a 90 degree ply, followed by a −45 degree ply, etc. The one or more other plies of the set of plies 180 may be formed as described herein. In some implementations, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192. In a particular implementation, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192 to achieve quasi-isotropic properties (isotropic properties in-plane). A part containing interleaved plies of different orientations has similar material properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, etc.) in all directions in a plane of the plies.
As to claim 14, Moore and Drumheller both disclose wherein the two or more plies have orientations that differ by less than 90°. See Moore, paragraph 0040, disclosing:
[0040] As one illustrative example, a first portion of plies 110 may be of baseline orientation 122; a second portion of plies 110 may have a 45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; a third portion of plies 110 may have a 90 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122; and a fourth portion of plies 110 may have a −45 degree orientation relative to baseline orientation 122. In some cases, the orientations of the plies within composite laminate 102 may follow a sequence (e.g., baseline, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and −45 degrees) that repeats.
Drumheller also discloses similar, see paragraph 0046, disclosing:
[0046] In some implementations, the commands 174 further cause the machine 106 to form one or more plies of the set of plies 180 having a second orientation (nominal orientation) that is different from the orientation of the first ply and the second ply. As an illustrative example, the machine 106 may form a 0 degree ply, followed by a +45 degree ply, followed by a 90 degree ply, followed by a −45 degree ply, etc. The one or more other plies of the set of plies 180 may be formed as described herein. In some implementations, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192. In a particular implementation, plies of multiple different orientations are interleaved between the first ply 182 and the second ply 192 to achieve quasi-isotropic properties (isotropic properties in-plane). A part containing interleaved plies of different orientations has similar material properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, etc.) in all directions in a plane of the plies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE R KOCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5807. The examiner can also be reached by E-mail at george.koch@uspto.gov if the applicant grants written authorization for e-mails. Authorization can be granted by filling out the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, PHILIP C TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
GRK
Prosecution Insights