Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment54599
2. The Amendment filed 3/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Claim Rejections’, filed 3/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Faulhaber US 10338213 B1 and Thomson (US 11880178 B1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulhaber US 10338213 B1 in view of Thomson (US 11880178 B1) further in view of (IEEE 1502-2020) ["IEEE Recommended Practice for Radar Cross-Section Test Procedures," in IEEE Std 1502-2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 1502-2007) , vol., no., pp.1-78, 29 Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9310748].
Regarding claim 1 Faulhaber discloses
A radar measurement method comprising aligning a radar antenna with a test target and performing a radar cross- section measurement of the test target using the radar antenna (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions"), and (b) moving the radar antenna to a radar antenna position relative to the test target based on (a) using a robot (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions" where the radar is on the robot arm being moved into a position relative of the target). Faulhaber does not disclose by (a) comparing a pre-defined reference image of the test target with an image capture device image of the test target using a computing device
Thomson discloses
Aligning by (a) comparing a pre-defined reference image of the test target with an image capture device image of the test target using a computing device (Column 29 lines 55-61, "the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system 306 of the manufacturing apparatus 300 providing instructional information to adjust the object into proper alignment").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose using a reference image. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber discloses using radar but it doesn’t disclose the use of a point cloud system paired with the coordinate system. When the radar first detects a potential target, incorporating point cloud data would be useful for helping to distinguish between detailed features that may have similar radar cross sections. Additionally, rcs alignment could be assisted by a coordinate system on which to make adjustments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson by adding in the use of point cloud data to help distinguish between features, which can increase the operational efficiency of the invention, and to add coordinate information to the radar data to aid in aligning the target and the antenna.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1. Faulhaber does not disclose further comprising a computing device including an image processing module with program instructions that perform (a) and an alignment module with program instructions that perform (b).
Thomson discloses
A computing device including an image processing module with program instructions that perform (a) and an alignment module with program instructions that perform (b) (Column 6 lines 62-67, "The system further comprises a data analysis software module having software and/or firmware capable of comparing data retrieved from the object scanned to a database or other representation comprising data from other similar or dissimilar objects or from a previous scan of the object"; Column 29 lines 54-59, "the data analysis module 202 of the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose modules using a reference image for the alignment. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Regarding claim 8 Faulhaber discloses
A radar measurement system comprising: a radar antenna that illuminates a test target, is alignable relative to the test target, and performs radar cross-section measurements on the test target (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions"); moves the radar antenna for measuring the radar cross-section of the test target (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions"). Faulhaber does not disclose a computing device storing a pre-defined reference image of the test target and an image capture device image of the test target, and a robot that moves the radar antenna to a radar antenna position relative to the test target based on a comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image
Thomson discloses
A computing device storing a pre-defined reference image of the test target and an image capture device image of the test target, and a robot that moves the radar antenna to a radar antenna position relative to the test target based on a comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image (Column 29 lines 55-61, "the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system 306 of the manufacturing apparatus 300 providing instructional information to adjust the object into proper alignment").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose using a reference image. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). An apparatus moving object A into alignment with object B or moving object B into alignment with object A, via a guiding reference image, is effectively the same action with the same end result. If the apparatus can move the object it would be obvious that it could also move the antenna into alignment, especially since Faulhaber already discloses a robotic arm that can move. As Faulhaber has a positioning system it would be obvious to incorporate the movement of Thomson into using the robot to align the antenna using the reference images. The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. Thomson As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber discloses using radar but it doesn’t disclose the use of a point cloud system paired with the coordinate system. When the radar first detects a potential target, incorporating point cloud data would be useful for helping to distinguish between detailed features that may have similar radar cross sections. Additionally, rcs alignment could be assisted by a coordinate system on which to make adjustments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson by adding in the use of point cloud data to help distinguish between features, which can increase the operational efficiency of the invention, and to add coordinate information to the radar data to aid in aligning the target and the antenna.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the computing device includes program instructions to execute an image processing module with program instructions that compares the reference image and image capture device image and an alignment module that moves the radar antenna.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the computing device includes program instructions to execute an image processing module with program instructions that compares the reference image and image capture device image and an alignment module that moves the radar antenna (Column 6 lines 62-67, "The system further comprises a data analysis software module having software and/or firmware capable of comparing data retrieved from the object scanned to a database or other representation comprising data from other similar or dissimilar objects or from a previous scan of the object"; Column 29 lines 54-59, "the data analysis module 202 of the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose modules using a reference image for the alignment. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulhaber US 10338213 B1 in view of Thomson (US 11880178 B1) further in view of (IEEE 1502-2020) ["IEEE Recommended Practice for Radar Cross-Section Test Procedures," in IEEE Std 1502-2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 1502-2007) , vol., no., pp.1-78, 29 Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9310748] further in view of Peng (US 20190025075 A1).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
Wherein a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber using the radar coordinates for comparison, would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber discloses and the radar antenna position is moved by a robotic arm in at least six degrees of freedom (Col 3, lines 58-61 "The robot arm controller 56 is specific to the type of robot arm that is employed, and is able to provide the necessary control signals to the robot arm 50 to properly move it in six-degrees of freedom"). Faulhaber does not disclose wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position; the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”); wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”)
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
A measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber in combination with Thomson discloses an image capture device image using an object centered coordinated system. However, having the image in a radar centered coordinate system would be helpful for orienting the radar (using its position) with the object centered coordinates. This is especially true as Faulhaber has a robotic arm that moves the radar but does not disclose a coordinate system. As Thomson can use an object centered coordinate system it would be obvious and feasible to have a radar centered coordinate system as shown by Peng. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1 including comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image. The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson does not disclose wherein comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target includes comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Peng discloses
Wherein comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target includes comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Paragraph 0009, "generating an optimal Euler angle difference between the target scanner and the reference scanner based on the centroid coordinates and the normal vectors of the obtained second planes comprises: constructing a sum function of the distances between the second planes corresponding to the target point cloud and the second planes corresponding to the reference point cloud by use of the centroid coordinates").
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the object and radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber comparing the coordinates would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The method of claim 1 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber does not disclose a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position; the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position; and comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with an image capture device image of the test target includes transforming the test target coordinate frame and measurement coordinate frame onto a common coordinate frame.
Thomson discloses
A data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber discloses using radar but it doesn’t disclose the use of a point cloud system paired with the coordinate system. When the radar first detects a potential target, incorporating point cloud data would be useful for helping to distinguish between detailed features that may have similar radar cross sections. Additionally, rcs alignment could be assisted by a coordinate system on which to make adjustments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson by adding in the use of point cloud data to help distinguish between features, which can increase the operational efficiency of the invention, and to add coordinate information to the radar data to aid in aligning the target and the antenna.
Peng discloses
The image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position); and comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with an image capture device image of the test target includes transforming the test target coordinate frame and measurement coordinate frame onto a common coordinate frame (Paragraph 0009, "generating an optimal Euler angle difference between the target scanner and the reference scanner based on the centroid coordinates and the normal vectors of the obtained second planes comprises: constructing a sum function of the distances between the second planes corresponding to the target point cloud and the second planes corresponding to the reference point cloud by use of the centroid coordinates"; Paragraph 0084, "In some embodiments, under the condition that the position information and the Euler angle of the target scanner are known, the electronic device may obtain translation information and rotation information, relative to the world coordinate system").
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the object and radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber comparing the coordinates, via coordinate transformation, would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system ; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
Wherein a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber using the radar coordinates for comparison, would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber discloses and the robot moves the antenna position in at least six degrees of freedom (Col 3, lines 58-61 "The robot arm controller 56 is specific to the type of robot arm that is employed, and is able to provide the necessary control signals to the robot arm 50 to properly move it in six-degrees of freedom"). Faulhaber does not disclose wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position; the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”); wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”)
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
A measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber in combination with Thomson discloses an image capture device image using an object centered coordinated system. However, having the image in a radar centered coordinate system would be helpful for orienting the radar (using its position) with the object centered coordinates. This is especially true as Faulhaber has a robotic arm that moves the radar but does not disclose a coordinate system. As Thomson can use an object centered coordinate system it would be obvious and feasible to have a radar centered coordinate system as shown by Peng. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8 including comparing the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image. The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson does not disclose wherein the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Peng discloses
Wherein the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Paragraph 0009, "generating an optimal Euler angle difference between the target scanner and the reference scanner based on the centroid coordinates and the normal vectors of the obtained second planes comprises: constructing a sum function of the distances between the second planes corresponding to the target point cloud and the second planes corresponding to the reference point cloud by use of the centroid coordinates").
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the object and radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber comparing the coordinates would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 8 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position; the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position; and the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber discloses using radar but it doesn’t disclose the use of a point cloud system paired with the coordinate system. When the radar first detects a potential target, incorporating point cloud data would be useful for helping to distinguish between detailed features that may have similar radar cross sections. Additionally, rcs alignment could be assisted by a coordinate system on which to make adjustments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson by adding in the use of point cloud data to help distinguish between features, which can increase the operational efficiency of the invention, and to add coordinate information to the radar data to aid in aligning the target and the antenna.
Peng discloses
The image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position); and the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
(Paragraph 0009, "generating an optimal Euler angle difference between the target scanner and the reference scanner based on the centroid coordinates and the normal vectors of the obtained second planes comprises: constructing a sum function of the distances between the second planes corresponding to the target point cloud and the second planes corresponding to the reference point cloud by use of the centroid coordinates"; Paragraph 0084, "In some embodiments, under the condition that the position information and the Euler angle of the target scanner are known, the electronic device may obtain translation information and rotation information, relative to the world coordinate system").
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the object and radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber comparing the coordinates would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 15 Faulhaber discloses
A radar measurement system comprising a radar antenna that illuminates a test target and is alignable relative to the test target (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions"). Faulhaber does not disclose a computing device storing a pre-defined reference image of the test target and an image capture device image of the test target; and a robot that moves the radar antenna to a radar antenna position relative to the test target based on a comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image; wherein the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
A computing device storing a pre-defined reference image of the test target and an image capture device image of the test target; and a robot that moves the radar antenna to a radar antenna position relative to the test target based on a comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image (Column 29 lines 55-61, "the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system 306 of the manufacturing apparatus 300 providing instructional information to adjust the object into proper alignment").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose using a reference image. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). An apparatus moving object A into alignment with object B or moving object B into alignment with object A, via a guiding reference image, is effectively the same action with the same end result. If the apparatus can move the object it would be obvious that it could also move the antenna into alignment, especially since Faulhaber already discloses a robotic arm that can move. As Faulhaber has a positioning system it would be obvious to incorporate the movement of Thomson into using the robot to align the antenna using the reference images. The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. Thomson As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Peng discloses
Wherein the computing device includes program instructions that compare the pre-defined reference image of the test target with the image capture device image of the test target by comparing a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position to a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Paragraph 0009, "generating an optimal Euler angle difference between the target scanner and the reference scanner based on the centroid coordinates and the normal vectors of the obtained second planes comprises: constructing a sum function of the distances between the second planes corresponding to the target point cloud and the second planes corresponding to the reference point cloud by use of the centroid coordinates").
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the object and radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber comparing the coordinates would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Faulhaber, Thomson, and Peng discloses
The system of claim 15 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber discloses using radar but it doesn’t disclose the use of a point cloud system paired with the coordinate system. When the radar first detects a potential target, incorporating point cloud data would be useful for helping to distinguish between detailed features that may have similar radar cross sections. Additionally, rcs alignment could be assisted by a coordinate system on which to make adjustments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson by adding in the use of point cloud data to help distinguish between features, which can increase the operational efficiency of the invention, and to add coordinate information to the radar data to aid in aligning the target and the antenna.
Regarding claim 17 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 15. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system ; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”).
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
Wherein a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber using the radar coordinates for comparison, would be advantageous to enable navigation of the radar robot so that the robot arm can use its own position to navigate to a desired preset position. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 18 the combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses
The system of claim 15 including a pre-defined reference image. Faulhaber discloses and the robot moves the antenna position in at least six degrees of freedom (Col 3, lines 58-61 "The robot arm controller 56 is specific to the type of robot arm that is employed, and is able to provide the necessary control signals to the robot arm 50 to properly move it in six-degrees of freedom"). Faulhaber does not disclose wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position; the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position.
Thomson discloses
Wherein: the pre-defined reference image of the test target includes a data file of a test target point cloud with coordinates defined in a test target coordinate frame defining a test target position (Column 20 lines 41-43, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object”; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”); wherein the image capture device image includes a measurement point cloud with coordinates (Column 18 lines 9-14, “One difficulty in comparing images from two or more scans taken over a period of time using conventional computer processing is the need to ensure that common points on the two images are properly aligned. One method for properly aligning scans is by use of a process utilizing spin-images”; Column 20 lines 41-44, “The representation used to identify individual surface points on an object, called the spin-image, uses an object-centric coordinate system (FIG. 11)” where the image has a coordinate system; Column 27 lines 14-18, “It should be understood that the images do not need to be the result of a 3D scan, it may also be a mathematical model of a surface, or even a surface drawing such as a 3D CAD drawing as long as the 3D surface is represented by point clouds or 3D meshes”)
Faulhaber does not disclose using an image with a coordinate system. However, as Thomson states in the above paragraph, comparing images with coordinate systems helps with the alignment process as there are points of comparison. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson in adding coordinate systems to the images used for comparison to facilitate accurate repeatable rcs measurements.
Peng discloses
A measurement point cloud with coordinates of the radar antenna defined in a radar antenna coordinate frame defining the radar antenna position (Abstract, "the method comprises: obtaining target point cloud data of the target object, acquired by a target scanner at a target position, and position information of the target scanner" where the coordinate information of a point cloud by default is relative to the radar position).
The combination of Faulhaber and Thomson discloses comparing a captured image/data with a reference image/data that includes point clouds but it does not disclose using the radar coordinates in the comparison. Faulhaber in combination with Thomson discloses an image capture device image using an object centered coordinated system. However, having the image in a radar centered coordinate system would be helpful for orienting the radar (using its position) with the object centered coordinates. This is especially true as Faulhaber has a robotic arm that moves the radar but does not disclose a coordinate system. As Thomson can use an object centered coordinate system it would be obvious and feasible to have a radar centered coordinate system as shown by Peng. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Peng to enable Faulhaber to use coordinates from its radar to facilitate robot navigation.
Regarding claim 19 the combination of Faulhaber, Thomson, and Peng discloses
The system of claim 15. Faulhaber discloses a radar for measuring a radar cross- section of the test target (Column 2 lines 2-14, "The system includes a plurality of automatic guided vehicles (AGV) each including a robot arm moveably mounted thereto and a radar unit selectively mounted to the robot arm and being interchangeable with a camera. Each AVG further includes an AGV positioning sub-system for positioning the AGV relative to the aircraft and positioning the robot arm on the AGV. Each AGV also includes an AGV controller for providing command and control signals to the AGV positioning sub-system, the robot arm, the radar unit and the camera so as to cause the radar unit to provide near-field RCS measurements or the camera to provide images of the aircraft at different elevations, angles and positions"). Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the robot moves the radar antenna to the radar antenna position relative to the test target based on the comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the robot moves the radar antenna to the radar antenna position relative to the test target based on the comparison by the computing device of the reference image and image capture device image (Column 29 lines 55-61, "the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system 306 of the manufacturing apparatus 300 providing instructional information to adjust the object into proper alignment").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose using a reference image. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). An apparatus moving object A into alignment with object B or moving object B into alignment with object A, via a guiding reference image, is effectively the same action with the same end result. If the apparatus can move the object it would be obvious that it could also move the antenna into alignment, especially since Faulhaber already discloses a robotic arm that can move. As Faulhaber has a positioning system it would be obvious to incorporate the movement of Thomson into using the robot to align the antenna using the reference images. The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. Thomson As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Regarding claim 20 the combination of Faulhaber, Thomson, and Peng discloses
The system of claim 15. Faulhaber does not disclose wherein the computing device includes program instructions to execute an image processing module with program instructions that compares the reference image and image capture device image and an alignment module that moves the radar antenna.
Thomson discloses
Wherein the computing device includes program instructions to execute an image processing module with program instructions that compares the reference image and image capture device image and an alignment module that moves the radar antenna (Column 29 lines 55-61, "the system software 200 operates as described above to compare the collected scanned data 120 (scene image) with stored reference data 122 (reference image) to determine the alignment of the object O. The system software 200 then operates to communicate with the control system 306 of the manufacturing apparatus 300 providing instructional information to adjust the object into proper alignment").
Faulhaber discusses aligning the radar to different positions of the target/aircraft but it doesn’t disclose using a reference image. Thomson discloses using a reference image to align a target with the radar which would be advantageous, as IEEE 1502-2020 states, (4.2.3 The need for a standardized radar cross-section measurement process, “Without a recognized standard for RCS measurements, each range should independently determine how to ensure that the measurements are accurate, repeatable, and verifiable”). An apparatus moving object A into alignment with object B or moving object B into alignment with object A, via a guiding reference image, is effectively the same action with the same end result. If the apparatus can move the object it would be obvious that it could also move the antenna into alignment, especially since Faulhaber already discloses a robotic arm that can move. As Faulhaber has a positioning system it would be obvious to incorporate the movement of Thomson into using the robot to align the antenna using the reference images. The robot matching the position to a reference image allows for more accurate background subtraction as with signals from the environment, easing the process of analyzing measurements on the aircraft in different facilities. Additionally, the robot using a reference image facilitates repeatability as recommended by IEEE 1502-2020. Thomson As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber with Thomson for improved background subtractions and measurement repeatability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights