Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/771,006

ELEVATOR SYSTEM WITH SELF-PROPELLED AUTONOMOUS CAB

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 21, 2022
Examiner
DUDA, RINA I
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hyprlift Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
808 granted / 1005 resolved
+12.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1028
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1005 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's comments filed 12/18/25 do not address the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 4-11. The 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 7-11 previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated 9/19/25 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 12/18/25. The prior art rejection previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action will be modified to address the changes made to the claims in the amendment filed on 12/28/25. 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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuezek et al (US Publication 20170066623). Claim 1, Kuezek et al teaches an elevator system comprising: at least one cab 28 comprising at least one tractive drive system 40 that may have two linear propulsion motors 41 positioned on opposite sides of the car 28, each motor 41 has a fixed portion 42 mounted on a fixed vertical rail in the shaft represented by a plurality of lines 30/32/34 and a moving portion 44 including a plurality of permanent magnets 50A/50B mounted on the cab 28, wherein the drive system transmits frictional forces to a stationary rail within a vertical shaft 26; a control system 46 for controlling the traction drive system; and a transposition system comprising a cradle 68, wherein the cradle is configured to receive the cab 28 moving in a vertical upward direction and translocate the cab 28 from a discontinuous segment of the vertical shaft to a discontinuous segment of another shaft, and wherein the tractive drive system is fully enclosed in the cradle (the linear motor is attached to the car 28). Although the transposition system is described as being above the top floor or below the first floor, Kuezek et al also describes the transposition system being located at the top or first floor, or at any intermediate floor, therefore the vertical shaft can be formed by discontinuous portions when the transposition system is located at any intermediate floor (see paragraph 0030). Kuezek et al does not specifically describe a plurality of shafts. However, they describe shaft lanes 30/32/34, wherein the cab 28 is translocated horizontally from one vertical shaft lane to another by means of a transfer system 36/38 which includes the cradle 68. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to interpret the lanes 30/32/34 as separate shafts, since the car moves in one single direction as it travels within each lane. Claim 6, Kuezek et al teaches control system 46 comprising a controller 58, a power source 52, buses 56, and drives 54 which provide drive signals to portion 42 of the drive system, wherein wireless communication is used between controller 58 and a series of units controlling operation of the drive system (see paragraph 0037 for example). Claim 7, Kuezek et al is directed to a method for controlling an elevator system, the rejection of claim 1 describes in great detail the components and the method of operation of the recited elevator system. Please review to the rejection of claim 1 above for the details of the elevator system, its components and associated functions. Claim 8, Kuezek et al describes, paragraph 0029, multiple cars 28 in shaft 26 and paragraph 0030 describes the transposition system being located in any intermediate floor. Claim 9, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, Kuezek et al describes shaft 26 including a plurality of lanes 30/32/34, wherein transfer system 36/28 connects said plurality of lanes. Claim 10, Kuezek et al describes a system 46 comprising a plurality of elements for controlling operation of a plurality of cabs between floors in a building (see for example paragraphs 0032-0334). Claim 11, Kuezek et al teaches control system 46 comprising a controller 58, a power source 52, buses 56, and drives 54 which provide drive signals to portion 42 of the drive system, wherein wireless communication is used between controller 58 and a series of units controlling operation of the drive system (see paragraph 0037 for example). Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuezek et al (US Publication 2017/0066623) and Dezer (US Publication 20160237713). The only difference between the subject matter of claims 4/5 and the teachings of Kuezek et al is that the claims recite a drive system that would allow the elevator car to move vertically as well as to rotate circumferentially within a cylindrical vertical shaft. Although the shape of the elevator system is considered a design choice, Dezer will be used to show that circular elevator enclosures are commonly known. Dezer teaches an elevator system 10 comprising a cylindrical shaft (see paragraph 0024); a drive system that allows a plurality of cars to move vertically within a multi-story building B as well as circumferentially by using for example a platform 50 (see paragraph 0027), wherein elevators cars are also horizontally translatable (see paragraph 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a circular shape for the elevator system, since as described by Dezer in paragraph 0024, is a design choice that can easily be modified. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems that include different means for moving an elevator car within a shaft. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM. 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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. /RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603590
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SYNCHRONIZING SYNCHRONOUS MOTORS WITH ELECTRIC GRID BASED ON DETECTED SHAFT POSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592657
SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE CONTROL DEVICE, SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE CONTROL METHOD, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583709
TAG DETECTION IN ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584341
OPENING/CLOSING MEMBER CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577082
DRIVE OF AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1005 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