Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/870,652

APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF COMMUNICATING A SHORT TRAINING FIELD (STF) OVER A MILLIMETERWAVE (MMWAVE) CHANNEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 30, 2024
Examiner
JOSEPH, JAISON
Art Unit
2633
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 652 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 652 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of the claims Claims 1 – 25 were originally filed in the application. With preliminary amendment filed on November 30, 2024, Applicant have cancelled claims 1 – 25 and added new claims 26 – 45. Claims 26 – 45 are pending in the application. 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. Claim(s) 26, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al (US 2019/0044781) in view of Kenney et al (US 9,867,082). Regarding claim 26, Lomayev et al teach an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry (see figure 1, paragraph 0044 “circuitry and/ or logic to perform wireless communication”) configured to cause a wireless communication device to: generate a Short Training Field (STF) according to a millimeter Wave (mmWave) )(see paragraph 0048 “mmWave” 0095 “embodiments may be implemented … in an mmWave band”) Physical layer (PHY) Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) format (paragraph 0067, generate a message, for example, … PHY Protocol Data Unit (PPDU)” and see figure 2, component 212 “ L-STF” and “EDMG-STF”), the STF comprising short training Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbol (see paragraph 0129 -0132, “OFDM PPDU”); and transmit an mmWave PPDU according to the mmWave PPDU format over an mmWave wireless communication channel in an mmWave frequency band, the mmWave PPDU comprising the STF (see figure 1, 2, 8 “transmit.. EDMG PPDU” and paragraph 0048 “communicate over a directional band, for example, an mmWave band,”). Lomayev et al does not expressly disclose that the STF comprising a plurality of repetitions of an STF structure. However, in analogous art, Kenney et al disclose a OFDM system (see abstract) using PPDU (see figure 1A) that have the STF comprising a plurality of repetitions of an STF structure (see figure 2, component 203 and column 7, lines 59 – column 8, lined 25, “A preamble repeater 203 of the physical layer logic 202 may repeat the symbols of the STF”), the STF structure comprising a plurality of repetitions of a short training Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbol (see column 6, lines 40 – 65 “STF 1064 may comprise short training symbols” and “ preamble structure include OFDM training symbols”), the short training OFDM symbol comprising a training sequence over a plurality of OFDM tones (see column 7, lines 59 – column 8, lined 25, the equation, “number of tones in STF payload”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use repetition of STF. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to extend the range at which the preamble may be detected and decoded by a receiving device. Regarding claim 36, which inherits the limitations of claim 26, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al further teach wherein the STF comprises a time domain repetition of the STF structure, wherein the time domain repetition of the STF structure comprises a sequence in time of two or more repetitions of the STF structure (see Kenney et al; column 7, lines 59 – column 8, lined 25, the equation, “number of tones in STF payload”). Regarding claim 37, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al further teach wherein a tone spacing of the short training OFDM symbol is equal to a tone spacing of a data OFDM symbol of a data portion of the mmWave PPDU (see Kenney et al column 6, lines 60 – column 7, line 7). Regarding claim 39, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al further teach wherein a count of repetitions in the two or more repetitions of the STF structure is at least 4 (see Kenney et al column 6, lines 60 – column 7, line 7 “one to four additional repetition”). Regarding claim 40, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al further teach wherein a count of repetitions in the plurality of repetitions of the short training OFDM symbol is at least 10 (see Kenney et al column 6, lines 60 – column 7, line 7 Kenney disclose repetition of X times. Choosing x to be 10 is within the scope of one of ordinary skilled in the art). Regarding claim 43, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al further teach comprising at least one radio to transmit the mmWave PPDU, one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the wireless communication device (see Lomayev et al figure 1). Regarding claim 44, the claimed product including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 26 is applicable hereto. Claim(s) 27 – 31, 35 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al (US 2019/0044781) in view of Kenney et al (US 9,867,082) and further in view of Liu et al (US 2021/0385688). Regarding claim 27, which inherits the limitations of claim 26, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al does not expressly disclose that wherein the STF comprises a frequency domain repetition of the STF structure . However, in analogous art, Liu et al teach apparatus for communication comprise uses wherein the STF comprises a frequency domain repetition of the STF structure, the frequency domain repetition of the STF structure comprises two or more repetitions of the STF structure over two or more respective frequency bandwidths (see figure 2 and 6 and paragraph 0029 “ PPDU may include a number (e.g., 4, 8 or 16) of 20-MHz legacy preambles,” and “the 20-MHz legacy preamble used in IEEE 802.11a/g/n/ac or IEEE 802.11ax which may be duplicated or otherwise repeated in the frequency domain”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the STF structure repeated in frequency domain. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to perform long-range transmission and reception for low-power indoor applications. Regarding claim 28, which inherits the limitations of claim 27, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach wherein a count of repetitions in the two or more repetitions of the STF structure is based on a minimal mmWave channel bandwidth (BW), wherein a BW of the mmWave wireless communication channel is equal to or greater than the minimal mmWave channel BW (see Liu et al, paragraph 0029). Regarding claim 29, which inherits the limitations of claim 28, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach ions in the two or more repetitions of the STF structure is based on a ratio between the minimal mmWave channel BW and 20 Megahertz (MHz) (see Liu et al, paragraph 0029). Regarding claim 30, which inherits the limitations of claim 28, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach wherein the count of repetitions in the two or more repetitions of the STF structure is 8, and the minimal mmWave channel BW is 160 Megahertz (MHz) (see Liu et al, paragraph 0029, “for a 160-MHz LPI LR preamble, the 20-MHz legacy preamble may be duplicated/repeated eight times”). Regarding claim 31, which inherits the limitations of claim 28, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach wherein the count of repetitions in the two or more repetitions of the STF structure is 16, and the minimal mmWave channel BW is 320 Megahertz (MHz) (see Liu et al, paragraph 0029, “for a 320-MHz LPI LR preamble, the 20-MHz legacy preamble may be duplicated/repeated sixteen times”). Regarding claim 35, which inherits the limitations of claim 27, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach wherein a count of repetitions in the plurality of repetitions of the short training OFDM symbol is 5 or less (see Liu et al paragraph 0029). Regarding claim 42, which inherits the limitations of claim 26, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al further teach wherein a bandwidth (BW) of the mmWave wireless communication channel is equal to or greater than a minimal mmWave channel BW of at least 160 Megahertz (MHz) (see Liu et al paragraph 0029). Claim(s) 32 – 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al (US 2019/0044781) in view of Kenney et al (US 9,867,082) and Liu et al (US 2021/0385688) and further in view of Sun et al (US 2017/0118315). Regarding claim 32, which inherits the limitations of claim 27, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al does not expressly disclose that wherein a tone spacing of the short training OFDM symbol is 312.5 Kilohertz (KHz). However, in analogous art, Sun et al teach wherein a tone spacing of the short training OFDM symbol is 312.5 Kilohertz (KHz) (see figure 1, and paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tone spacing of 312.5 KHz. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to comply with 802.11 communication standard. Regarding claim 33, which inherits the limitations of claim 27, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al does not expressly disclose wherein the short training OFDM symbol comprises the training sequence comprising nonzero energy values populated over OFDM tones having tone indexes which are an integer multiple of 4, and zero energy values over other OFDM tones. However in analogous art, Sun et al teach wherein the short training OFDM symbol comprises the training sequence comprising nonzero energy values populated over OFDM tones having tone indexes which are an integer multiple of 4, and zero energy values over other OFDM tones (see paragraph 0057 and 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tone spacing as claimed. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to improve frequency diversity and mitigates narrow-band interference. Regarding claim 34, which inherits the limitations of claim 27, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al and Liu et al does not expressly disclose wherein the short training OFDM symbol comprises the training sequence comprising nonzero energy values populated over OFDM tones having tone indexes which are an integer multiple of 8, and zero energy values over other OFDM tones However in analogous art, Sun et al teach wherein the short training OFDM symbol comprises the training sequence comprising nonzero energy values populated over OFDM tones having tone indexes which are an integer multiple of 8, and zero energy values over other OFDM tones (see paragraph 0057 and 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tone spacing as claimed. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to improve frequency diversity and mitigates narrow-band interference. Claim(s) 38, 41 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al (US 2019/0044781) in view of Kenney et al (US 9,867,082) and further in view of Park et al (US 2022/0173853). Regarding claim 38, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al does not expressly disclose wherein a tone spacing of the short training OFDM symbol is 2.5 Megahertz (MHz). However in analogous art, Park et al teach a communication system using PPDU that have tone spacing of the short training OFDM symbol is 2.5 Megahertz (MHz) (see paragraphs 0069, 0159). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a STF structure of 2.5MHz. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to comply with requirements of Ultra Low latency communication standard (such as those in the 2.4-2.5 GHz or mmWave bands). Regarding claim 41, which inherits the limitations of claim 36, Lomayev et al in view of Kenney et al does not expressly disclose that STF structure is no more than 4 microseconds. However in analogous art, Park et al teach a communication system using PPDU that have STF structure is no more than 4 microseconds (see paragraphs 0040 and 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a STF structure of 4 microseconds. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to comply with requirements of Ultra Low latency communication standard. Regarding claim 45, which inherits the limitations of claim 44, the claimed product including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 41 is applicable hereto. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4. 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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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. JAISON . JOSEPH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2633 /JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603657
REDUCING NON-LINEARITY IN A DIGITAL-TO-TIME CONVERTER (DTC) DUE TO UNEQUAL SUCCESSIVE INPUT CODES SPECIFYING RESPECTIVE DELAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592814
MAINTAINING A VIRTUAL TIME OF DAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580624
DYNAMIC SPLIT COMPUTING FOR BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580720
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO REDUCE RETIMER LATENCY AND JITTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580617
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENT TIME MULTIPLEXED DIGITAL BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 652 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month