Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/398,715

ELEVATOR POSITION REFERENCE SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 10, 2021
Examiner
UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Otis Elevator Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 849 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
903
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 849 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ response filed January 16, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Election/Restrictions Applicants’ election of Group I and Species IA in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 6, drawn to a nonelected species is hereby further withdrawn from consideration. 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. Claim 9 is 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 includes the limitation “comprising a second intermediate fixing device (14b’), secured at a second fixing position in the hoistway”. However the claims do not properly describe a first intermediate fixing device nor a first fixing position, as these elements were introduced in claim 2. It is unclear whether the claim necessarily requires a first intermediate fixing device and a first fixing position in order to provide a second intermediate fixing device and a second fixing position. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “comprising an intermediate fixing device (14b’), secured at a fixing position in the hoistway”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1). Claim 1: Foster et al. discloses an elevator position reference system shown in FIG. 1 to comprise a hoistway (12) extending in a vertical direction and a first position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction (page 2 paragraph [0043]). A first upper tensioning device (rectangular connector) is shown in FIG. 13 to be connected to bracket (302) and to an upper end of the first position measurement tape (300) so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction, and a first lower tensioning device (bracket 308) connected to bracket (302) and to a lower end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction via spring (page 3 paragraph [0047]), as is recognized in the art. Claim 15: Foster et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where an elevator system comprises the elevator position reference system and further comprises an elevator car (10) (page 2 paragraph [0043]) and a position measurement sensor included in enclosure body member (100) mounted on the elevator car and arranged to detect the first position measurement tape for determining the vertical position of the elevator car within the hoistway (page 3 paragraph [0051], [0053]). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1) in view of Caputo et al. (US 4,433,756). Claim 2: Foster et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, but fails to disclose an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion. However Caputo et al. teaches an elevator position reference system, where an intermediate fixing device (bracket 74) is shown in FIG. 1 to be secured at a fixing position in a hoistway (24) and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of a first position measurement tape (coded tape 50), between an upper end and a lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion with respect to each floor (column 4 lines 31-37). Given the teachings of Caputo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elevator position reference system disclosed in Foster et al. with providing an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion. Doing so would prevent floor position memories from needed to be reprogrammed even “while the building may settle or compress after it is constructed” as taught in Caputo et al. (column 4 lines 35-39). Claim 3: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where the intermediate fixing device is shown in FIG. 3 of Caputo et al. to comprise a fixing bracket (right angle member 108) including a first portion secured at the fixing position and a second portion fixed to the intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape (column 7 lines 17-24). The second portion is shown to be horizontally offset relative to the first portion so that the intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape is located horizontally away from the fixing position in the hoistway. Claim 4: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system where vertical movement of the intermediate portion is prevented, as stated above. The intermediate fixing device is shown in FIG. 3 of Caputo et al. to comprise a clamping plate (flat plate members 104, 106) arranged to apply pressure to a first side of the first position measurement tape so as to prevent said vertical movement of the intermediate portion (column 7 lines 17-24). Claim 5: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where the fixing position is shown in Caputo et al. to be on a wall of the hoistway (column 4 lines 31-33). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1) in view of Lee (US 9,469,501 B2). Claim 7: Foster et al. discloses an elevator position reference system where a first position measurement tape is arranged in a hoistway extending in the vertical direction, a first upper tensioning device is connected to an upper end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction, and a first lower tensioning device is connected to a lower end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction, as stated above. This reference fails to disclose a second position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction below the first position measurement tape, a second upper tensioning device to be connected to an upper end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction and a second lower tensioning device to be connected to a lower end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction. However Lee teaches an elevator position reference system where a first and second position measurement tape (detectable member) is positioned at discrete locations within a hoistway without being continuous (column 20 lines 17-19). Therefore a first position measurement tape (optical tape 110) and a second position measurement tape (optical tape 110) would be arranged in the hoistway extending in a vertical direction as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where the second position measurement tape would be below the first position measurement tape. Given the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elevator position reference system disclosed in Foster et al. with providing a second position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction below the first position measurement tape, a second upper tensioning device to be connected to an upper end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction and a second lower tensioning device to be connected to a lower end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction. It has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow replacement of a smaller length of a position measurement tape when damaged or otherwise providing false readings, without requiring replacement of a position measurement tape extending an entire length of a hoistway, thereby saving time and money. Claim 8: Foster et al. modified by Lee discloses an elevator position reference system including first and second position measurement tape, each having an upper tensioning device and a lower tensioning device respectively, as stated above. FIG. 13 of Foster et al. shows mounting components (brackets 302) arranged in the hoistway to mount the upper tensioning devices and the lower tensioning devices. These references fail to disclose a single mounting component to mount the second upper tensioning device and the first lower tensioning device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a single mounting component to mount the second upper tensioning device and the first lower tensioning device, since it has been held that making various elements into an integral structure involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968,144 USPQ 347,347 (CCPA 1965). Doing so would ensure the first and second position measurement tapes remain in a fixed position relative to each other, allowing “elevator positioning system [to] still align elevator car with landings … [even though] building may undergo a compression due to settling and other factors” as taught in Lee (column 8 lines 22-28). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1) modified by Lee (US 9,469,501 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Caputo et al. (US 4,433,756). Claim 9: Foster et al. modified by Lee discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, but fails to disclose an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the second position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape. However Caputo et al. teaches an elevator position reference system, where an intermediate fixing device (bracket 74) is shown in FIG. 1 to be secured at a fixing position in a hoistway (24) and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of a first position measurement tape (coded tape 50), between an upper end and a lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion with respect to each floor (column 4 lines 31-37). Given the teachings of Caputo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elevator position reference system disclosed in Foster et al. with providing an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the second position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape. Doing so would prevent floor position memories from needed to be reprogrammed even “while the building may settle or compress after it is constructed” as taught in Caputo et al. (column 4 lines 35-39). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,591,176 B2 pertaining to multiple position measurement tapes in the hoistway and US 8,985,281 B2, US 11,905,140 B2 pertaining to intermediate fixing devices in the hoistway. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. /Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595152
PRECISE ELEVATOR CAR SPEED AND POSITION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595154
ELEVATOR BRAKE DEVICE DETERIORATION PREDICTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589971
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMICALLY MODIFYING A CAPACITY LIMIT OF AN ELEVATOR CAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583711
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING ELEVATOR LOADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562073
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LEARNING TO PLAY A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
62%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+9.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 849 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