Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/529,563

ELEVATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RESTORING OPERATION OF AN ELEVATOR CAR

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Nov 18, 2021
Examiner
DONELS, JEFFREY
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Otis Elevator Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1115 granted / 1295 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1314
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§102
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1295 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Herkel (USPGP 2019210837). Regarding Claim 16, Herkel discloses an elevator system 2, comprising: an elevator car 6; an elevator controller 13, configured to control operation of the elevator car 6; and a safety controller 17 and a plurality of safety contacts (paras. 0034, 0038, 0039) connected to the safety controller 17, wherein the plurality of safety contacts monitor the elevator system 2, wherein the safety controller 17 is configured to receive (para. 0034) individual status information from each of the plurality of safety contacts and to prevent movement (paras. 0034-0039) of the elevator car 6 when the individual status information received from one of the plurality of safety contacts indicates an unsafe condition of the elevator system 2; prevent movement of the elevator car 6 and notify the elevator controller 13 of the prevented movement of the elevator car 6; wherein, the elevator controller 13 is configured to: connect to a remote computing device 22; receive second authentication information from the remote computing device 22; and in response to the second authentication information satisfying an authentication condition, authenticate the remote computing device 22 (paras. 0039, 0040; a second authentication is implicit with use of a VPN) and provide the state information of the elevator system to the remote computing device 22 (paras. 0042-0046); wherein the safety controller 17 is configured to connect to a remote computing device 22, to receive first authentication information (para. 0054) from the remote computing device 22, and to authenticate (paras. 0055-0059) the remote computing device 22 if the first authentication information meets an authentication condition; and if the remote computing device 22 is authenticated, to permit the remote computing device 22 to override the safety controller 17 to effect movement (paras. 0052, 0061) of the elevator car 6 based on status information of the elevator system 2 received from the elevator controller 13. 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. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herkel (USPGP 2019210837). Regarding Claims 1,10, Herkel discloses an elevator system 2, comprising: an elevator car 6; an elevator controller 13, configured to control operation of the elevator car 6; and a safety controller 17 and a plurality of safety contacts (paras. 0034, 0038, 0039) connected to the safety controller 17, wherein the plurality of safety contacts monitor the elevator system 2, wherein the safety controller 17 is configured to receive (para. 0034) individual status information from each of the plurality of safety contacts and to prevent movement (paras. 0034-0039) of the elevator car 6 when the individual status information received from one of the plurality of safety contacts indicates an unsafe condition of the elevator system 2; wherein the safety controller 17 is configured to connect to a remote computing device 22, to receive first authentication information (para. 0054) from the remote computing device 22, and to authenticate (paras. 0055-0059) the remote computing device 22 if the first authentication information meets an authentication condition; and if the remote computing device 22 is authenticated, to permit the remote computing device 22 to override the safety controller 17 to enable movement (paras. 0052, 0061) of the elevator car 6. Herkel teaches, and Applicant argues, that the safety controller 17 is included within elevator controller 13, and as such Herkel does not explicitly teach the safety controller 17 is separate from the elevator controller 13. It has been held that the making separate or rearrangement of parts has been held to not constitute nonobviousness (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do thusly, as this would be functionally equivalent to Herkel. Regarding Claims 2,11 Herkel discloses the safety controller 17 is configured to receive an override command ERO from the remote computing device 22 before enabling movement of the elevator car 6 (paras. 0052, 0053) Regarding Claims 3,12 Herkel discloses the elevator controller 13 is configured to connect to the remote computing device 22, to receive second authentication information from the remote computing device 22, and to authenticate the remote computing device 22 if the second authentication information meets an authentication condition (paras. 0039, 0040; a second authentication is implicit with use of a VPN) Regarding Claims 4,13 Herkel discloses the elevator controller 13 is configured to receive an action command from the remote computing device 22 and to control operation of the elevator car 6 to carry out an action ERO in response to the action command following authentication (paras. 0052-0061). Regarding Claim 5, Herkel discloses the elevator controller 13 is configured to receive the individual status information received from the safety contact that has indicated an unsafe condition (para. 0034) and to send the individual status information to the remote computing device 22 following authentication (paras. 0042-0046). Regarding Claim 6, Herkel discloses a position determination system 25 arranged to provide elevator car position information to the elevator controller 13, wherein the elevator controller 13 is configured to send the elevator car position information to the remote computing device 22 following authentication (paras. 0038, 0039, 0044). Regarding Claim 7, Herkel discloses a remote computing device 22 on which is stored first authentication information, wherein the remote computing device 22 is located remotely from the elevator system and configured to connect to the elevator system 2 via a communications network (paras. 0054-0056, implicit). Regarding Claim 8, Herkel discloses second authentication information is stored on the remote computing device 22, the remote computing device 22 being configured to be authenticated by the elevator controller using the second authentication information (paras. 0025, 0039, 0040; second authentication information is implicit for VPN). Regarding Claim 9, Herkel discloses the remote computing device 22 is configured to asymmetrically encrypt the first authentication information (paras. 0020, 0022). Regarding Claim 14, Herkel discloses the remote computing device 22 encrypting the first authentication information using a public key and the safety controller 17 decrypting the first authentication information using a private key stored on the safety controller (paras. 0020, 0022). Regarding Claim 15, Herkel discloses the remote computing device 22 sending the first authentication information to the safety controller over a wireless network (para. 0040). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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. JEFFREY . DONELS Examiner Art Unit 2837 /JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 13, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595155
ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586485
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING LYRICS AND CHORDS FOR USER INTERFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573361
PICKUP DEVICES OPTIMISED FOR AMPLIFYING AN ACOUSTIC GUITAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565403
ELEVATOR SYSTEM WITH SIMPLIFIED POWER SUPPLY FOR SHAFT DOOR ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12545550
ELEVATOR PARKING BRAKE, A METHOD FOR OPERATING AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM AND AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1295 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