DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Priority
The pending application 18/280,729, filed on 7 SEP 2023, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/KR2022/008143, filed on 9 JUN 2022, and claims priority from foreign application KR10-2021-0174657, filed on 8 DEC 2021, and foreign application KR10-2021-0075454, filed on 10 JUN 2021, in the Republic of Korea.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 17 MAY 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 9 and 19 being independent.
Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous office action dated 23 MAR 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 12-14, filed 17 MAY 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13-18 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Akihiro (JP 2004-301649 A, previously relied upon by the examiner), Nakagawa et al. (US 2015/0168546 A1, newly cited by the examiner) and Yoshitake et al. (US 2022/0026567 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “NLOS” in lines 6, 12 and 16. It is unclear to the examiner if “NLOS” refers to the signal, signal path, apparatus, or is another element of the apparatus. For the purpose of prosecution, “NLOS” has been interpreted as “NLOS path.”
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 9 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akihiro (JP 2004-301649 A, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2015/0168546 A1, newly cited by the examiner) and Yoshitake et al. (US 2022/0026567 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Akihiro discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
A non-line-of-sight (NLOS) radar apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a NLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro first channel, Fig. 1);
a direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1);
a first radar receiver (Akihiro “a means for receiving reflected waves of the transmitted signals from targets such as vehicles” – p. 5), disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Akihiro first frequency f1 signal, where f1 is 1 GHz, Fig. 1), that includes a NLOS signal and DLOS signals that are transmitted through a NLOS (Akihiro as shown in Fig. 1, the first channel of the received signal processing circuit for the radar system receives reflected signals of a first frequency reflected from targets both in and out of the line-of-sight and converts the signal into a digital signal; “The received signal of the emitted microwaves from a target such as a vehicle is composed of reflected waves, transmitted waves, and diffracted waves from the target and other road reflectors.” – p. 6), into a digital signal, and output a first path signal (Akihiro CH1, Fig. 1);
a first signal processor (Akihiro over-the-horizon target detection circuit, Fig. 1), disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to receive a second path signal (Akihiro CH2, Fig. 1) from the DLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1), and that is configured to detect a DLOS (Akihiro where f2 is 20 GHz and has a much greater diffraction loss than f1 at 1 GHz, such that the received f2 signal has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, “the signal strength of the reflected waves and transmitted waves does not depend much on frequency, but only the diffracted waves depend greatly on frequency. Moreover, this diffraction does not occur from targets or other road reflectors within line of sight, but is a phenomenon specific to non-line-of-sight, as reflected waves from non-line-of-sight are received by turning around.” - p. 6), and cancel a DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal from the DLOS signals included in the first path signal using the second path signal, and extract the NLOS signal from the first path signal (Akihiro “Therefore, when microwaves are received at two frequencies, such as 1 GHz and 20 GHz, that are so far apart that the diffraction losses are significantly different, the only difference between the received signals is the diffracted wave, and by detecting this diffracted wave, it is possible to detect targets such as vehicles that are out of the line of sight.”- p. 6-7); and
Nakagawa et al. discloses:
a first detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, Fig. 4);
a second detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311, Fig. 4);
a first radar receiver (Nakagawa et al. millimeter wave transmitter/receiver 304, Fig. 4), disposed in the first detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Nakagawa et al. “the radar apparatus 300 sets a 77 to 79 GHz frequency band as a frequency channel 201 of the first radar module 301…” - ¶ [0040]);
a first signal processor (Nakagawa et al. signal processor 321, Fig. 4), configured to receive a second path signal from the second detection apparatus, which is separate from the first detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311 is separate from first radar module 301, Fig. 4)
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
a first signal detector configured to detect an object on the NLOS based on the extracted NLOS signal (Yoshitake et al. blind spot object measurer 132, Fig. 3)
wherein the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal which is not included in NLOS object detection (Yoshitake et al. “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” - ¶ [0103]; where the it is understood that the DLOS signal relevant to the NLOS signal is kept when “the wave source 40 is at a position not predicted as an environmental component from the structural information D1. It can be expected that such a situation is caused by the multiple reflection of a wave from the object 4 in the blind spot.” - ¶ [0106]; “In step S23, referring to a distance to the intersection in the vicinity of the blind spot in the structural information D1, the controller 13 may remove a component of a received wave obtained in the reciprocating propagation time of a signal or less, with respect to linear distance from the intersection. Such a received wave is a directly reflected wave (i.e., a wave with one reflection) and does not include information on the blind spot object 4.” - ¶ [0113]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose that the DLOS detection apparatus separate from the NLOS detection apparatus, and that the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal which is not included in NLOS object detection. These features are disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. where Nakagawa et al. discloses a first radar module and a second radar module separate from the first radar module (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, second radar module 311, Fig. 4), and Yoshitake et al. discloses “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0103]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]) and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first frequency radar signal (Akihiro first frequency f1 signal, Fig. 1) uses a first path frequency (Akihiro 1 GHz – p. 6) lower than a second path frequency (Akihiro 20 GHz – p. 6) of a second frequency radar signal (Akihiro second frequency f2 signal, Fig. 1) used in the DLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first path signal includes the NLOS signal acquired through the NLOS, an NLOS-related DLOS signal which is included in the NLOS detection, and the DLOS signal which is not included in the NLOS detection (Akihiro as shown in Fig. 1, the first channel of the received signal processing circuit for the radar system receives reflected signals of a first frequency reflected from targets both in and out of the line-of-sight and converts the signal into a digital signal; “The received signal of the emitted microwaves from a target such as a vehicle is composed of reflected waves, transmitted waves, and diffracted waves from the target and other road reflectors.” – p. 6).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first signal processor is configured to remove the DLOS signal which is not included in the NLOS detection from the first path signal using the second path signal, and generate the NLOS signal including the NLOS-related DLOS signal (Akihiro “The obtained detection signals CH1 and CH2 are input to an over-the-horizon target detection circuit and a distance/speed detection circuit… From this differential signal, only the reflected signal (diffracted wave) from the non-line-of-sight target is separated and extracted by the arithmetic processing means. A threshold detector then identifies over-the-horizon targets.” – p. 7-8).
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first signal detector is configured to receive the NLOS signal from the first signal processor ,
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
wherein the first signal detector is configured to receive the NLOS signal from the first signal processor (Yoshitake et al. blind-spot object detector 132 receives the signal from the controller 13, Fig. 3), and detect the object on the NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing Al learning (Yoshitake et al. “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” - ¶ [0115]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro as modified above to yield the invention of claim 5. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose detect the object on the NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing Al learning. This feature are disclosed by Yoshitake et al. where “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0115]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]), and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
wherein the first signal processor is configured to extract a Doppler pattern signal with respect to the first path signal (Yoshitake et al. “the controller 13 may analyze whether or not to find a characteristic that appears due to the behavior of a specific object, e.g., Doppler shift due to reflection on a moving object or fluctuation of the behavior particular to a person or a bicycle in the signal component to be analyzed.” - ¶ [0115]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro as modified above to yield the invention of claim 6. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first signal processor is configured to extract a Doppler pattern signal with respect to the first path signal. This feature are disclosed by Yoshitake et al. where “the controller 13 may analyze whether or not to find a characteristic that appears due to the behavior of a specific object, e.g., Doppler shift due to reflection on a moving object or fluctuation of the behavior particular to a person or a bicycle in the signal component to be analyzed.” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0115]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]), and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 6
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
wherein the first signal detector is configured to receive target position information (Yoshitake et al. “By analyzing such a signal component, the detection processing of a blind spot object (S6) detects the speed, position, and the like of the blind spot object 4 that reflects the multiple reflected wave Rb1.” - ¶ [0076]) and the Doppler pattern signal (Yoshitake et al. “the controller 13 may analyze whether or not to find a characteristic that appears due to the behavior of a specific object, e.g., Doppler shift due to reflection on a moving object or fluctuation of the behavior particular to a person or a bicycle in the signal component to be analyzed.” - ¶ [0115])from the non-line-of-sight signal , and detect the object on the NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing Al learning (Yoshitake et al. “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” - ¶ [0115]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro as modified above to yield the invention of claim 7. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro as modified above discloses the invention of claim 6. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first signal detector is configured to receive target position information and the Doppler pattern signal from the non-line-of-sight signal, and detect the object on the NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing Al learning. This feature are disclosed by Yoshitake et al. where “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0115]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]), and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first signal processor is configured to perform a cancellation operation (Akihiro “The obtained detection signals CH1 and CH2 are input to an over-the-horizon target detection circuit and a distance/speed detection circuit… From this differential signal, only the reflected signal (diffracted wave) from the non-line-of-sight target is separated and extracted by the arithmetic processing means. A threshold detector then identifies over-the-horizon targets.” – p. 7-8) using the second path signal from which the NLOS signal is removed (Akihiro where f2 is 20 GHz and has a much greater diffraction loss than f1 at 1 GHz, such that the received f2 signal has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, “the signal strength of the reflected waves and transmitted waves does not depend much on frequency, but only the diffracted waves depend greatly on frequency. Moreover, this diffraction does not occur from targets or other road reflectors within line of sight, but is a phenomenon specific to non-line-of-sight, as reflected waves from non-line-of-sight are received by turning around.” - p. 6) and the first path signal including the NLOS signal (Akihiro as shown in Fig. 1, the first channel of the received signal processing circuit for the radar system receives reflected signals of a first frequency reflected from targets both in and out of the line-of-sight and converts the signal into a digital signal; “The received signal of the emitted microwaves from a target such as a vehicle is composed of reflected waves, transmitted waves, and diffracted waves from the target and other road reflectors.” – p. 6).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Akihiro discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
A non-line-of-sight (NLOS) radar apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a NLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro first channel, Fig. 1);
a direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1);
a first radar (Akihiro first channel, Fig. 1) configured to receive a first frequency radar signal (Akihiro first frequency f1 signal, where f1 is 1 GHz, Fig. 1) that includes a NLOS signal, and direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) signals that are transmitted through a NLOS (Akihiro as shown in Fig. 1, the first channel of the received signal processing circuit for the radar system receives reflected signals of a first frequency reflected from targets both in and out of the line-of-sight and converts the signal into a digital signal; “The received signal of the emitted microwaves from a target such as a vehicle is composed of reflected waves, transmitted waves, and diffracted waves from the target and other road reflectors.” – p. 6); and
a second radar (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1), (Akihiro second frequency f2 signal, Fig. 1) through a DLOS (Akihiro where f2 is 20 GHz and has a much greater diffraction loss than f1 at 1 GHz, such that the received f2 signal has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, “the signal strength of the reflected waves and transmitted waves does not depend much on frequency, but only the diffracted waves depend greatly on frequency. Moreover, this diffraction does not occur from targets or other road reflectors within line of sight, but is a phenomenon specific to non-line-of-sight, as reflected waves from non-line-of-sight are received by turning around.” - p. 6), wherein the first radar comprises:
a first radar receiver (Akihiro “a means for receiving reflected waves of the transmitted signals from targets such as vehicles” – p. 5) configured to convert the first frequency radar signal into a digital signal and output a first path signal (Akihiro CH1, Fig. 1);
a first signal processor (Akihiro over-the-horizon target detection circuit, Fig. 1) configured to cancel a DLOS signal (Akihiro where f2 is 20 GHz and has a much greater diffraction loss than f1 at 1 GHz, such that the received f2 signal has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, “the signal strength of the reflected waves and transmitted waves does not depend much on frequency, but only the diffracted waves depend greatly on frequency. Moreover, this diffraction does not occur from targets or other road reflectors within line of sight, but is a phenomenon specific to non-line-of-sight, as reflected waves from non-line-of-sight are received by turning around.” - p. 6) irrelevant to the NLOS included in the first path signal using a second path signal (Akihiro CH2, Fig. 1) provided from the second radar, and extract a NLOS related signal (Akihiro “Therefore, when microwaves are received at two frequencies, such as 1 GHz and 20 GHz, that are so far apart that the diffraction losses are significantly different, the only difference between the received signals is the diffracted wave, and by detecting this diffracted wave, it is possible to detect targets such as vehicles that are out of the line of sight.”- p. 6-7); and
Nakagawa et al. discloses:
a first detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, Fig. 4);
a second detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311, Fig. 4);
a first radar receiver (Nakagawa et al. millimeter wave transmitter/receiver 304, Fig. 4), disposed in the first detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Nakagawa et al. “the radar apparatus 300 sets a 77 to 79 GHz frequency band as a frequency channel 201 of the first radar module 301…” - ¶ [0040]),;
a first signal processor (Nakagawa et al. signal processor 321, Fig. 4), configured to receive a second path signal from the second detection apparatus, which is separate from the (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311 is separate from first radar module 301, Fig. 4)
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
a first signal detector configured to detect an object on the NLOS based on the extracted NLOS signal (Yoshitake et al. blind spot object measurer 132, Fig. 3)
wherein the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal which is not included in NLOS object detection (Yoshitake et al. “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” - ¶ [0103]; where the it is understood that the DLOS signal relevant to the NLOS signal is kept when “the wave source 40 is at a position not predicted as an environmental component from the structural information D1. It can be expected that such a situation is caused by the multiple reflection of a wave from the object 4 in the blind spot.” - ¶ [0106]; “In step S23, referring to a distance to the intersection in the vicinity of the blind spot in the structural information D1, the controller 13 may remove a component of a received wave obtained in the reciprocating propagation time of a signal or less, with respect to linear distance from the intersection. Such a received wave is a directly reflected wave (i.e., a wave with one reflection) and does not include information on the blind spot object 4.” - ¶ [0113]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro discloses the limitations of claim 9 outlined above. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose the second radar is separate from the first radar, and that the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal which is not included in NLOS object detection. These features are disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. where Nakagawa et al. discloses a first radar module and a second radar module separate from the first radar module (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, second radar module 311, Fig. 4), and Yoshitake et al. discloses “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0103]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]) and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 14 (Previously Presented), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Akihiro discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
A non-line-of-sight (NLOS) radar apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a NLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro first channel, Fig. 1);
a direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1);
a radar receiver (Akihiro “a means for receiving reflected waves of the transmitted signals from targets such as vehicles” – p. 5), disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Akihiro first frequency f1 signal, where f1 is 1 GHz, Fig. 1), that includes a NLOS signal and DLOS signals (Akihiro as shown in Fig. 1, the first channel of the received signal processing circuit for the radar system receives reflected signals of a first frequency reflected from targets both in and out of the line-of-sight and converts the signal into a digital signal; “The received signal of the emitted microwaves from a target such as a vehicle is composed of reflected waves, transmitted waves, and diffracted waves from the target and other road reflectors.” – p. 6) that are transmitted through a NLOS, into a digital signal, and output a first path signal (Akihiro CH1, Fig. 1);
a signal processor (Akihiro over-the-horizon target detection circuit, Fig. 1) configured to receive a second path signal (Akihiro CH2, Fig. 1) from the DLOS detection apparatus, and that is configured to detect a DLOS (Akihiro where f2 is 20 GHz and has a much greater diffraction loss than f1 at 1 GHz, such that the received f2 signal has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, “the signal strength of the reflected waves and transmitted waves does not depend much on frequency, but only the diffracted waves depend greatly on frequency. Moreover, this diffraction does not occur from targets or other road reflectors within line of sight, but is a phenomenon specific to non-line-of-sight, as reflected waves from non-line-of-sight are received by turning around.” - p. 6), cancel a DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal included in the first path signal using the second path signal, and extract a NLOS signal from the first path signal (Akihiro “Therefore, when microwaves are received at two frequencies, such as 1 GHz and 20 GHz, that are so far apart that the diffraction losses are significantly different, the only difference between the received signals is the diffracted wave, and by detecting this diffracted wave, it is possible to detect targets such as vehicles that are out of the line of sight.”- p. 6-7); and
.
Nakagawa et al. discloses:
a first detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, Fig. 4);
a second detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311, Fig. 4);
a radar receiver (Nakagawa et al. millimeter wave transmitter/receiver 304, Fig. 4), disposed in the first detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Nakagawa et al. “the radar apparatus 300 sets a 77 to 79 GHz frequency band as a frequency channel 201 of the first radar module 301…” - ¶ [0040])
a signal processor (Nakagawa et al. signal processor 321, Fig. 4), configured to receive a second path signal from the second detection apparatus, which is separate from the first detection apparatus (Nakagawa et al. second radar module 311 is separate from first radar module 301, Fig. 4)
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
a signal detector (Yoshitake et al. blind-spot object detector 132 receives the signal from the controller 13, Fig. 3) comprising a NLOS Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm (Yoshitake et al. “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” - ¶ [0115]), and configured to detect an object on the NLOS by implementing the NLOS Al algorithm with respect to the extracted NLOS signal and to output a detection signal (Yoshitake et al. “the controller 13 calculates a risk level index D based on the detection result of the blind spot object 4 in step S6 (S31)” - [0118]; where the analysis performed using machine learning outputs a result that the controller 13 uses for further processing; Figs. 10, 12),
wherein the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal that is not included in NLOS object detection (Yoshitake et al. “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” - ¶ [0103]; where the it is understood that the DLOS signal relevant to the NLOS signal is kept when “the wave source 40 is at a position not predicted as an environmental component from the structural information D1. It can be expected that such a situation is caused by the multiple reflection of a wave from the object 4 in the blind spot.” - ¶ [0106]; “In step S23, referring to a distance to the intersection in the vicinity of the blind spot in the structural information D1, the controller 13 may remove a component of a received wave obtained in the reciprocating propagation time of a signal or less, with respect to linear distance from the intersection. Such a received wave is a directly reflected wave (i.e., a wave with one reflection) and does not include information on the blind spot object 4.” - ¶ [0113]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. into the invention of Akihiro to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Akihiro discloses the limitations of claim 17 outlined above. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose the DLOS detection apparatus is separate from the NLOS detection apparatus, and that the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal is a DLOS signal which is not included in NLOS object detection. These features are disclosed by Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. where Nakagawa et al. discloses a first radar module and a second radar module separate from the first radar module (Nakagawa et al. first radar module 301, second radar module 311, Fig. 4), and Yoshitake et al. discloses “The controller 13 removes an environmental component showing a reflected wave from the surrounding environment from the acquired measurement result of the radar 11, to extract a signal component for analyzing the blind spot object (S23).” (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0103]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]) and adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akihiro (JP 2004-301649 A, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2015/0168546 A1, newly cited by the examiner) and Yoshitake et al. (US 2022/0026567 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Harrison (US 2019/0339349 A1, cited by applicant tin IDS dated 7 SEP 2023).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), Akihiro as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Akihiro has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 17
Yoshitake et al. discloses:
wherein the Al algorithm is generated through pre-learning for the NLOS signal (Yoshitake et al. “The above analysis may be performed in combination as appropriate, or may be performed as a multidimensional feature quantity using machine learning instead of explicitly analyzing each.” - ¶ [0115]).
Harrison discloses:
wherein the Al algorithm is generated through pre-learning for the NLOS signal (Harrison “The radar system 302 has a reinforcement learning engine that is trained to detect and identify the targets and control the MTS antenna module as desired.” - ¶ [0020])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Harrison into the invention of Akihiro as modified above to yield the invention of claim 18. Akihiro, Nakagawa et al., Yoshitake et al. and Harrison are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as:
Akihiro discloses: receiving radar signals of two different frequencies and comparing the received signals to extract only non-line-of-sight signals
Nakagawa et al. discloses: a radar apparatus comprising a first radar module and a second radar module that transmit and received different frequencies and combines the output of the first radar module and second radar module to perform object detection
Yoshitake et al. discloses: a radar apparatus sensing device that uses radar to detect a blind spot object by extracting a signal component for analyzing as blind spot object by removing the environmental component of the radar return signal
Harrison discloses: a radar system for detecting non-line-of-sight targets and uses artificial intelligence to detect and identify targets
Akihiro as modified above discloses the invention of claim 17. However, Akihiro fails to explicitly disclose wherein the Al algorithm is generated through pre-learning for the NLOS signal. This feature is disclosed by Harrison where “The radar system 302 has a reinforcement learning engine that is trained to detect and identify the targets and control the MTS antenna module as desired.” (Harrison ¶ [0020]). The combination of Akihiro, Nakagawa et al. and Yoshitake et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “to detect, in a stable manner, a target having many dominant scattering points that reflect a radar transmission signal” (Nakagawa et al. ¶ [0010]), adjust the precision for detection in order to reduce the processing load and efficiently detect the objects in a blind spot (Yoshitake et al. ¶ [0037]), and “have full understanding of a dynamic, fast-moving environment in real time and human-like intelligence to act in response to changes in the environment” (Harrison ¶ [0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
25 JUL 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights