DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 supplemental amendment filed on 11 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 9 and 18 being independent.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings filed on 2 JAN 2026 have overcome the objection(s) raised in the previous office action dated 22 OCT 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 12, filed 11 FEB 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2018/0120842 A1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. (US 2018/0120842 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Akihiro (JP 2004-301649 A, previously relied upon by the examiner with respect to claims 2 and 9-16).
Regarding the Examiner' s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Smith et al., the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically “a first signal processor, disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to receive a second path signal from a DLOS detection apparatus, separate from the NLOS detection apparatus, that is configured to detect a DLOS, and cancel a direct-line-of-sight that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal from the DLOS signals included in the first path signal using the second path signal” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 12).
Applicant argues that “it is improper for the Office to assert that two separately recited elements (the claimed “non-line-of-sight (NLOS) radar apparatus” and the claim “direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) detection apparatus”) both correspond to a single element (the radar system 270) of Smith” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 13-14).
Applicant’s argument on this issue is persuasive. A new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. in view Akihiro, where Akihiro is relied upon to teach a DLOS detection apparatus. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). Therefore, the second channel is considered to be a DLOS detection apparatus.
Applicant further argues that “the processed radar data 222 (which the Office asserts corresponds to the claimed “second path signal”) is not used to “cancel a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the non-line-of-sight signal from the direct-line-of-sight signals included in the first path signal using the second path signal”” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 15).
Applicant’s argument on this issue is persuasive. A new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. in view Akihiro, where Akihiro to teaches using a second path signal to “cancel a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the non-line-of-sight signal from the direct-line-of-sight signals included in the first path signal using the second path signal.” Akihiro teaches the first channel and the second channel simultaneously transmit signals having different frequencies. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). This allows the NLOS signal to be simply extracted by using a differential circuit (Akihiro p. 7). The use of the differential circuit to extract the NLOS signal is considered to be a cancellation operation that cancels the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal from the DLOS signals included in the first channel signal using the second channel signal.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 17, filed 11 FEB 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. in view of Akihiro have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner' s rejection of independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. in view of Akihiro, the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically “a second radar, separate from the first radar, and configured to receive a second frequency radar signal through a DLOS”” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 17).
Applicant argues that the radar system 105 shown in Fig. 1 and the radar system 270 shown in Fig. 2 of Smith are not separate radars, but separate embodiments of Smith, and each of the separate embodiments of Smith only teach a single radar system 105 or 270 (Applicant’s remarks, p. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To clarify the rejection of the previous office action, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Smith was only relied upon to teach the use of multiple radar systems. This is more clearly articulated in the specification where, “By way of example, the sensors 102 can include multiple sets of camera systems 101 (video cameras, stereoscopic cameras or depth perception cameras, long range monocular cameras), LIDAR systems 103, one or more radar systems 105, and various other sensor resources…” (Smith et al. ¶ [0027]). Further, Akihiro is relied upon to teach a first radar and a second radar, where each channel is considered to be a separate radar. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references of the feature “a first signal processor configured to cancel a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS included in the first path signal using a second path signal provided from the second radar, and extract a NLOS signal,” as recited in claim 9.” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 17)
Applicant further states that “Akihiro relates to a single radar system that uses multiple frequencies (e.g., f1 and f2 via channels CH1 and CH2) to differentiate and extract diffract waves for non-line-of-sight detection through a differential circuit that compares signal strengths across frequencies. There is no teaching or suggestion in Akihiro of a collaboration between multiple radars, or one radar providing a path signal to another radar for cancellation of direct-line-of-sight signals.” (Applicant’s remarks, p. 17)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each channel of Akihiro independently performs radar measurements, transmitting and receiving radio waves to detect objects. Therefore, each channel is considered a radar. The over-the-horizon target detection circuit receives signals from both channels and uses a differential circuit to separate and extract only the diffracted waves (Akihiro p. 7). The over-the-horizon target detection circuit is considered a first signal processor and is configured to extract an NLOS signal from the first channel, by using the signal received by the second channel. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding independent claim 1:
Lines 6-8 recite “a first signal processor, disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to receive a second path signal from a DLOS detection apparatus, separate from the NLOS detection apparatus…” The “DLOS detection apparatus” is not positively recited in claim 1. It is unclear to the examiner if the DLOS detection apparatus is part of the claimed non-line-of-sight radar apparatus. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as the DLOS detection apparatus is part of the claimed non-line-of-sight radar apparatus and provided as a separate channel.
Line 9 recites “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal.” It is unclear to the examiner what is meant by “irrelevant” or how a direct-line-of-sight signal is determined to be “irrelevant.” It is also unclear to the examiner what is canceled. Does “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” mean that all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled, or, that only DLOS signals from among a plurality of DLOS signals, that are irrelevant are canceled? For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled.
Line 12 recites “a NLOS.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a NLOS” recited in line 12 is the same as or distinct from “a NLOS” recited in line 5. For the purpose of prosecution, “a NLOS” recited in line 12 has been interpreted as the same as “a NLOS” recited in line 5.
Claims 2-8 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 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding dependent claim 3:
Lines 2-5 recite “wherein the first signal path includes a NLOS signal acquired through the NLOS, an NLOS-related DLOS signal which is relevant to NLOS detection, and a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection.” It is unclear to the examiner what distinguishes the NLOS-related DLOS signal that is relevant to the NLOS detection from the DLOS signal which is not relevant to the NLOS detection. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 3 has been interpreted as “the firth path signal includes NLOS signals and DLOS signals.”
Line 2 recites “a NLOS signal.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a NLOS signal” of line 2 of claim 3, is the same as or distinct from “a NLOS signal” recited in line 4 of claim 1. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as the same as “a NLOS signal” recited in line 4 of claim 1.
Line 4 recites “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” is the same as or distinct from “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” in line 9 of claim 1. Further, it is unclear to the examiner if “irrelevant” and “not relevant” are intended to mean the same thing or something different. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as referring to “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” recited in line 9 of claim 1, and where “irrelevant” and “not relevant” mean the same thing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 3 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding dependent claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first signal processor is configured to remove the DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection from the first path signal using the second path signal, and generate the NLOS signal including the NLOS-related DLOS signal.”
It is unclear to the examiner if this “the DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” of claim 4 intends to refer to “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” of claim 3, or “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” of claim 1. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as referring to “a direct-line-of-sight signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” recited in line 9 of claim 1, and where “irrelevant” and “not relevant” mean the same thing.
It is unclear to the examiner what distinguishes the NLOS-related DLOS signal that is relevant to the NLOS detection from the DLOS signal which is not relevant to the NLOS detection. For the purpose of prosecution, “the NLOS-related DLOS signal” has been interpreted as “the NLOS-related DLOS signal is the DLOS signal that arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a same direction as the direction of the NLOS signal.”
It is unclear to the examiner what is removed. Does “DLOS signal which is not relevant” mean that all of the DLOS signal or signals are removed, or, that only DLOS signals from among a plurality of DLOS signals, that are not relevant are removed? For the purpose of prosecution, “DLOS signal which is not relevant” has been interpreted as “the DLOS signal which is irrelevant to the NLOS detection arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a different direction from a direction of the NLOS signal.”
In summary, claim 4 has been interpreted as “wherein the first signal processor is configured to remove the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to NLOS detection from the first path signal using the second path signal, and generate the NLOS signal including the NLOS-related DLOS signal, where the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS detection arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a different direction from a direction of the NLOS signal, and the NLOS-related DLOS signal is the DLOS signal that arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a same direction as the direction of the NLOS signal.”
Regarding independent claim 9:
Lines 10-11 recites “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS.” It is unclear to the examiner what is meant by “irrelevant” or how a DLOS signal is determined to be “irrelevant.” It is also unclear to the examiner what is canceled. Does “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS” mean that all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled, or, that only DLOS signals from among a plurality of DLOS signals, that are irrelevant are canceled? For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled.
Line 14 recites “a NLOS.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a NLOS” recited in line 14 is the same as or distinct from “a NLOS” recited in line 4. For the purpose of prosecution, “a NLOS” recited in line 14 has been interpreted as the same as “a NLOS” recited in line 4.
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.
Regarding dependent claim 11:
Lines 2-4 recite “wherein the first signal path includes a NLOS signal obtained through the NLOS, an NLOS-related DLOS which is relevant to NLOS detection, and a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection.” It is unclear to the examiner what distinguishes the NLOS-related DLOS that is relevant to the NLOS detection from the DLOS signal which is not relevant to the NLOS detection. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 11 has been interpreted as “the firth path signal includes NLOS signals and DLOS signals.”
Line 2 recites “a NLOS signal.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a NLOS signal” of line 2 of claim 11, is the same as or distinct from “a NLOS signal” recited in lines 3-4 of claim 9. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as the same as “a NLOS signal” recited in lines 3-4 of claim 9.
Line 4 recites “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” is the same as or distinct from “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS” in lines 10-11 of claim 9. Further, it is unclear to the examiner if “irrelevant” and “not relevant” are intended to mean the same thing or something different. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as referring to “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 9, and where “irrelevant” and “not relevant” mean the same thing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding dependent claim 12:
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first signal processor is configured to remove the DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection from the first path signal using the second path signal, and generate the NLOS signal including the NLOS-related DLOS signal.”
It is unclear to the examiner if this “the DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” of claim 12 intends to refer to “a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection” of claim 11, or “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS” of claim 9. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as referring to “a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS” recited in claim 9, and where “irrelevant” and “not relevant” mean the same thing.
It is unclear to the examiner what distinguishes the NLOS-related DLOS signal that is relevant to the NLOS detection from the DLOS signal which is not relevant to the NLOS detection. For the purpose of prosecution, “the NLOS-related DLOS signal” has been interpreted as “the NLOS-related DLOS signal is the DLOS signal that arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a same direction as the direction of the NLOS signal.”
It is unclear to the examiner what is removed. Does “DLOS signal which is not relevant” mean that all of the DLOS signal or signals are removed, or, that only DLOS signals from among a plurality of DLOS signals, that are not relevant are removed? For the purpose of prosecution, “DLOS signal which is not relevant” has been interpreted as “the DLOS signal which is irrelevant to the NLOS detection arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a different direction from a direction of the NLOS signal.”
In summary, claim 12 has been interpreted as “wherein the first signal processor is configured to remove the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to NLOS detection from the first path signal using the second path signal, and generate the NLOS signal including the NLOS-related DLOS signal, where the DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS detection arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a different direction from a direction of the NLOS signal, and the NLOS-related DLOS signal is the DLOS signal that arrives at the NLOS radar apparatus from a same direction as the direction of the NLOS signal.”
Regarding independent claim 17:
Lines 6-8 recite “a signal processor configured to receive a second path signal from a DLOS detection apparatus, separate from the NLOS detection apparatus…” The “DLOS detection apparatus” is not positively recited in claim 17. It is unclear to the examiner if the DLOS detection apparatus is part of the claimed non-line-of-sight radar apparatus. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as the DLOS detection apparatus is part of the claimed non-line-of-sight radar apparatus and provided as a separate channel.
Lines 8-9 recites “a DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS.” It is unclear to the examiner what is meant by “irrelevant” or how a DLOS signal is determined to be “irrelevant.” It is also unclear to the examiner what is canceled. Does “a DLOS that is irrelevant to the NLOS signal” mean that all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled, or, that only DLOS signals from among a plurality of DLOS signals, that are irrelevant are canceled? For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as all of the DLOS signal or signals are canceled.
Line 12 recites “a NLOS.” It is unclear to the examiner if “a NLOS” recited in line 12 is the same as or distinct from “a NLOS” recited in line 5. For the purpose of prosecution, “a NLOS” recited in line 12 has been interpreted as the same as “a NLOS” recited in line 5.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2018/0120842 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Akihiro (JP 2004-301649 A, previously relied upon by the examiner with respect to claims 2 and 9-16).
Regarding claim 1 Currently Amended), Smith et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
A non-line of sight (NLOS) radar apparatus (Smith et al. radar system 270 detects non-line-of-sight reflections, Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a first radar receiver (Smith et al. radar system 270, Fig. 2), disposed in a NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Smith et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, the radar system 337 can emit an electromagnetic signal 303 (e.g., in the radio or microwave frequency range) and receive return signals from any objects in the path of the emitted signal 303.” - ¶ [0060]) that includes a NLOS signal and direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) signals (Smith et al. multipath signal 331, Fig. 3; where multipath signal 331 is a reflected portion of the electromagnetic signal 303; “However, radar signals have high reflectance, so the vehicle 327 can return one or more additional, multipath signals (e.g., multipath signal 331 reflected from the surface of the building 321).” - ¶ [0060]) received through a NLOS into a digital signal (Smith et al. raw radar data 271, Fig. 2), and output a first path signal (Smith et al. processed radar data 222, Fig. 2);
a first signal processor (Smith et al. radar data processing system 200, Fig. 2), disposed in the NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to, (Smith et al. primary signal 333, Fig. 3; where primary signal 333 is a reflected portion of the electromagnetic signal 303) the NLOS signal from the first path signal (Smith et al. “In any case, once the ghost objects are detected, the radar data processing system 200 can either remove one or more of the ghost objects from the raw radar data 271, or identify and track one or more of the detected ghost objects.” - ¶ [0047]; where identifying and tracking the ghost objects requires canceling the direct-line-of-sight signals); and
a first signal detector (Smith et al. perception/prediction engine 240, Fig. 2) configured to detect an object (Smith et al. vehicle 327, Fig. 3) on a NLOS based on the extracted NLOS signal (Smith et al. ghost object detector 255, Fig. 2; “In doing so, the ghost object detector 255 can identify radar signal returns in the raw radar data 271, and utilize the current localization map 233 to determine whether each return is due to multipath propagation or is from an object of interest.” - ¶ [0043]).
Akihiro discloses:
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 received 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 output a first path signal (Akihiro CH1, Fig. 1)
a first signal processor (Akihiro over-the-horizon target detection circuit, Fig. 1) configured to receive a second path signal (Akihiro CH2, Fig. 1) from a DLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1), separate from the NLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro the second channel is considered to be separate from the first channel, Fig. 1), 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 direct-line-of-sight 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);
a first signal detector configured to detect an object on a NLOS based on the extracted NLOS 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).
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 Akihiro into the invention of Smith et al. to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Smith et al. and Akihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for vehicle that use multipath signals to detect objects outside the line-of-sight. Smith et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Smith et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first signal processor is configured to receive a second path signal from a DLOS detection apparatus, separate from the NLOS detection apparatus, that is configured to detect a DLOS, and cancel a direct-line-of-sight 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. This feature is disclosed by Akihiro where a second channel is provided separate from the first channel and “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.” (Akihiro p. 7-8). The first channel and the second channel simultaneously transmit signals having different frequencies. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). This allows the NLOS signal to be simply extracted by using a differential circuit (Akihiro p. 7). The combination of Smith et al. and Akihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide an out-of-sight vehicle detection radar system that can detect targets such as vehicles that are out of sight, such as at intersections with no traffic lights and poor visibility, and can detect the distance and relative speed to targets such as vehicles approaching an intersection with poor visibility.” (Akihiro p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1
Akihiro discloses:
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).
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 Akihiro into the invention of Smith et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 2 above. Both Smith et al. and Akihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for vehicle that use multipath signals to detect objects outside the line-of-sight. Smith et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Smith et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency radar signal uses a first path frequency lower than a second path frequency of a second frequency radar signal used in the DLOS detection apparatus. This feature is disclosed by Akihiro where “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.” (Akihiro p. 6-7). The combination of Smith et al. and Akihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide an out-of-sight vehicle detection radar system that can detect targets such as vehicles that are out of sight, such as at intersections with no traffic lights and poor visibility, and can detect the distance and relative speed to targets such as vehicles approaching an intersection with poor visibility.” (Akihiro p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first path signal includes a NLOS signal acquired through the NLOS, an NLOS-related DLOS signal which is relevant to NLOS detection, and a DLOS signal which is not relevant to NLOS detection (Smith et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, the radar system 337 can emit an electromagnetic signal 303 (e.g., in the radio or microwave frequency range) and receive return signals from any objects in the path of the emitted signal 303.” - ¶ [0060]; where the electromagnetic signal 303 includes non-line-of-sight paths and direct line-of-sight paths).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first signal detector is configured to receive NLOS signal from the first signal processor, and detect the object on the NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing AI learning (Smith et al. “Such SDVs may instead utilize deep learning or deep neural networks trained to autonomously operate the SDV 201 along a given route, analyzing the live sensor map 276 from the various sensor systems of the SDV 201.” - ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first signal processor is configured to extract a Doppler pattern signal with respect to the first path signal (Smith et al. “For example, when an occlusion is detected, the radar data processing engine 125 can scan for multipath returns to identify multipath object behind the occlusion, and perform ray tracing operations to determine such parameters as location, velocity, and trajectory of the actual objects corresponding to the multipath returns.” - ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 6, 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 NLOS by implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm constructed by performing AI learning (Smith et al. “In some aspects, the perception and prediction engine 240 can classify objects of interest in the overall sensor view (e.g., comprised of sensor data from all of the SDV's sensor systems) as either dynamic objects, such as people, animals, and other vehicles, or static objects, such as buildings, parked vehicles, and road features.” - ¶ [0048]; “Such SDVs may instead utilize deep learning or deep neural networks trained to autonomously operate the SDV 201 along a given route, analyzing the live sensor map 276 from the various sensor systems of the SDV 201.” - ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 1
Akihiro discloses:
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)
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 Akihiro into the invention of Smith et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 8 above. Both Smith et al. and Akihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for vehicle that use multipath signals to detect objects outside the line-of-sight. Smith et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Smith et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first signal processor is configured to perform a cancellation operation using the second path signal from which the NLOS signal is removed and the first path signal including the NLOS signal. This feature is disclosed by Akihiro where “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.” (Akihiro p. 7-8). The first channel and the second channel simultaneously transmit signals having different frequencies. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). This allows the NLOS signal to be simply extracted by using a differential circuit (Akihiro p. 7). The combination of Smith et al. and Akihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide an out-of-sight vehicle detection radar system that can detect targets such as vehicles that are out of sight, such as at intersections with no traffic lights and poor visibility, and can detect the distance and relative speed to targets such as vehicles approaching an intersection with poor visibility.” (Akihiro p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
A non-line-of-sight (NLOS) radar apparatus (Smith et al. radar system 270 detects non-line-of-sight reflections, Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a first radar (Smith et al. radar system 270, Fig. 2) configured to receive a first frequency radar signal (Smith et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, the radar system 337 can emit an electromagnetic signal 303 (e.g., in the radio or microwave frequency range) and receive return signals from any objects in the path of the emitted signal 303.” - ¶ [0060]) that includes a NLOS signal, and direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) signals (Smith et al. multipath signal 331, Fig. 3; where multipath signal 331 is a reflected portion of the electromagnetic signal 303; “However, radar signals have high reflectance, so the vehicle 327 can return one or more additional, multipath signals (e.g., multipath signal 331 reflected from the surface of the building 321).” - ¶ [0060]) through a NLOS; and
a second radar (Smith et al. one or more radar systems 105, Fig. 1),
wherein the first radar comprises:
a first radar receiver (Smith et al. radar system 270, Fig. 2) configured to convert the first frequency radar signal (Smith et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, the radar system 337 can emit an electromagnetic signal 303 (e.g., in the radio or microwave frequency range) and receive return signals from any objects in the path of the emitted signal 303.” - ¶ [0060]) into a digital signal (Smith et al. raw radar data 271, Fig. 2) and output a first path signal (Smith et al. processed radar data 222, Fig. 2);
a first signal processor (Smith et al. radar data processing system 200, Fig. 2)
a first signal detector (Smith et al. perception/prediction engine 240, Fig. 2) configured to detect an object (Smith et al. vehicle 327, Fig. 3) on extract a NLOS based on the extracted NLOS signal (Smith et al. ghost object detector 255, Fig. 2; “In doing so, the ghost object detector 255 can identify radar signal returns in the raw radar data 271, and utilize the current localization map 233 to determine whether each return is due to multipath propagation or is from an object of interest.” - ¶ [0043]).
Akihiro discloses:
a first frequency radar signal (Akihiro f1, where f1 is 1 GHz Fig. 1) that includes a NLOS signal, and direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) signals 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), separate from the first radar (Akihiro the second channel is considered to be separate from the first channel, Fig. 1), and configured to receive a second frequency radar signal (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 (Akihiro first channel, Fig. 1) comprises:
a first radar receiver 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
a first signal detector configured to detect an object on a NLOS based on the extracted NLOS 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).
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 Akihiro into the invention of Smith et al. to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Both Smith et al. and Akihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for vehicle that use multipath signals to detect objects outside the line-of-sight. Smith et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9 outlined above. However, Smith et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first signal processor is configured to cancel a DLOS signal irrelevant to the NLOS included in the first path signal using a second path signal provided from the second radar, and extract a NLOS related signal; and a first signal detector configured to detect an object on a NLOS based on the extracted NLOS signal. This feature is disclosed by Akihiro where a second channel is provided separate from the first channel and “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.” (Akihiro p. 7-8). The first channel and the second channel simultaneously transmit signals having different frequencies. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). This allows the NLOS signal to be simply extracted by using a differential circuit (Akihiro p. 7). The combination of Smith et al. and Akihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide an out-of-sight vehicle detection radar system that can detect targets such as vehicles that are out of sight, such as at intersections with no traffic lights and poor visibility, and can detect the distance and relative speed to targets such as vehicles approaching an intersection with poor visibility.” (Akihiro p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 7 is applied.’
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Smith et al. has been struck-through]
A non-line-of-sight radar (NLOS) radar apparatus (Smith et al. radar system 270 detects non-line-of-sight reflections, Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a radar receiver (Smith et al. radar system 270, Fig. 2), disposed in a NLOS detection apparatus, and configured to convert a first frequency radar signal (Smith et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, the radar system 337 can emit an electromagnetic signal 303 (e.g., in the radio or microwave frequency range) and receive return signals from any objects in the path of the emitted signal 303.” - ¶ [0060]) that includes a NLOS signal and a direct-line-of-sight (DLOS) signals (Smith et al. multipath signal 331, Fig. 3; where multipath signal 331 is a reflected portion of the electromagnetic signal 303; “However, radar signals have high reflectance, so the vehicle 327 can return one or more additional, multipath signals (e.g., multipath signal 331 reflected from the surface of the building 321).” - ¶ [0060]) received through a NLOS into a digital signal (Smith et al. raw radar data 271, Fig. 2), and output a first path signal (Smith et al. processed radar data 222, Fig. 2);
a signal processor (Smith et al. radar data processing system 200, Fig. 2) DLOS signal (Smith et al. primary signal 333, Fig. 3; where primary signal 333 is a reflected portion of the electromagnetic signal 303) NLOS signal from the first path signal (Smith et al. “In any case, once the ghost objects are detected, the radar data processing system 200 can either remove one or more of the ghost objects from the raw radar data 271, or identify and track one or more of the detected ghost objects.” - ¶ [0047]; where identifying and tracking the ghost objects requires canceling the direct-line-of-sight signals); and
a signal detector (Smith et al. perception/prediction engine 240, Fig. 2) comprising a NLOS Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm (Smith et al. “Such SDVs may instead utilize deep learning or deep neural networks trained to autonomously operate the SDV 201 along a given route, analyzing the live sensor map 276 from the various sensor systems of the SDV 201.” - ¶ [0045]), and configured to detect an object (Smith et al. vehicle 327, Fig. 3) on the NLOS by implementing the NLOS AI algorithm with respect to the extracted NLOS signal and to output a detection signal (Smith et al. ghost object detector 255, Fig. 2; “In doing so, the ghost object detector 255 can identify radar signal returns in the raw radar data 271, and utilize the current localization map 233 to determine whether each return is due to multipath propagation or is from an object of interest.” - ¶ [0043]).
Akihiro discloses:
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 (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 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 a DLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro second channel, Fig. 1), separate from the NLOS detection apparatus (Akihiro the second channel is considered to be separate from the first channel, Fig. 1), 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 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
a signal detector configured to detect an object on the NLOS with respect to the extracted NLOS 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).
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 Akihiro into the invention of Smith et al. to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Both Smith et al. and Akihiro are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for vehicle that use multipath signals to detect objects outside the line-of-sight. Smith et al. discloses the limitations of claim 17 outlined above. However, Smith et al. fails to explicitly disclose the signal processor is configured to receive a second path signal from a DLOS detection apparatus, separate from the NLOS detection apparatus, that is configured to detect a DLOS, cancel a DLOS signal that is irrelevant to the NLOS included in the first path signal using the second path signal, and extract a NLOS signal from the first path signal. This feature is disclosed by Akihiro where a second channel is provided separate from the first channel and “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.” (Akihiro p. 7-8). The first channel and the second channel simultaneously transmit signals having different frequencies. The second channel, using a much higher frequency, has negligible reflections from outside the line-of-sight, resulting in a DLOS signal (Akihiro p. 4). This allows the NLOS signal to be simply extracted by using a differential circuit (Akihiro p. 7). The combination of Smith et al. and Akihiro would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide an out-of-sight vehicle detection radar system that can detect targets such as vehicles that are out of sight, such as at intersections with no traffic lights and poor visibility, and can detect the distance and relative speed to targets such as vehicles approaching an intersection with poor visibility.” (Akihiro p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Smith et al. as modified above discloses:
The NLOS radar apparatus of claim 17, wherein the AI algorithm is generated through pre-learning for the NLOS signal (Smith et al. “Such SDVs may instead utilize deep learning or deep neural networks trained to autonomously operate the SDV 201 along a given route, analyzing the live sensor map 276 from the various sensor systems of the SDV 201.” - ¶ [0045]).
Conclusion
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
16 MAR 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648