Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/993,792

CONTROLLING OF ELEVATOR SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Nov 23, 2022
Examiner
CHAN, KAWING
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
559 granted / 765 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
789
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 765 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/23/2022 and 10/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter. Therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. 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 3 and 13 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 claims 3 and 13, the limitation “a detection of the predefined input from the image data based on a detection from at least one image among the number of images at least one of: a blink of the at least one eye of the person; and a position of the gaze point remains stationary with a predefined margin a period of time exceeding a predefined threshold time” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “at least one of: a blink of the at least one eye of the person; and a position of the gaze point remains stationary with a predefined margin a period of time exceeding a predefined threshold time” corresponds to “predefined input”, “image data”, or “at least one image among the number of images”. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatsu (WO 2018/158813 A1) (hereinafter rejection rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of Preston (US 2015/0232300 A1). Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17-18, Iwatsu discloses a method, a computer program (e.g. p. 7: software) for executing the method (e.g. process shown in Fig. 4), an elevator system and an arrangement of an elevator system for controlling the elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1: elevator call registration system), the arrangement comprising: at least one gaze tracking device (e.g. Fig. 1: line of sight recognition camera 10, 12, 13) for capturing a number of images representing at least one eye of a person (e.g. p. 3-4, 7 & 9: line of sight image taken by camera closest to the user’s eye); and a control unit (e.g. p. 7 & Fig. 5: processor 51 & Fig. 2: 2) configured to, in response to a receipt of the number of images from the gaze tracking device, perform: detect a predefined input from image data received from the gaze tracking device (e.g. Abstract: point of gaze based on image captured by a gaze recognition camera 10); detect an intersection of the virtual user interface and a gaze point, the gaze point being related to a detection of the predefined input and determined from the image data received from the gaze tracking device (e.g. Abstract: point of gaze based on image captured by a gaze recognition camera 10; p. 4: point of sight directed to a position corresponding to floor buttons 5, indicator 8, or input start mark 11 for a period of time, for example); and generate a control signal to the elevator system in accordance with a position of the gaze point intersecting the virtual user interface (e.g. p. 4: operation detection unit 21 detects a call registration operation based on detection position by the line-of-sight recognition unit 17). Iwatsu fails to disclose, but Preston teaches at least one projector device for projecting a virtual user interface (e.g. [0024, 0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iwatsu with the teachings of Preston to provide virtual operating panel for an elevator so as to provide panel on each side of the elevator door for convenience (e.g. Preston: [0025]). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Prestion teaches the control unit is further configured to control an operation of the at least one projector device (e.g. [0024, 0025]). Regarding claims 3, 13 and 19, Iwatsu discloses the control unit is configured to perform a detection of the predefined input from the image data based on a detection from at least one image among the number of images at least one of: a blink of the at least one eye of the person; and a position of the gaze point remains stationary with a predefined margin a period of time exceeding a predefined threshold time (p. 4: point of sight directed to a position corresponding to floor buttons 5, indicator 8, or input start mark 11 for a period of time, for example). Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, Iwatsu and Preston in combination discloses the control unit is configured to generate the control signal to the elevator system in accordance with the position of the gaze point intersecting the virtual user interface in response to a detection that the gaze point intersects a predefined area of the virtual user interface (e.g. Iwatsu in p. 4: operation detection unit 21 detects a call registration operation based on detection position of passenger gazing at a floor button on a control panel by the line-of-sight recognition unit 17, and Preston in [0024, 0025] teaches elevator is capable of projecting a virtual control panel). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Iwatsu discloses the control unit is configured to determine a relation of the gaze point to the detection of the predefined input by one of: the gaze point corresponds to a gaze point determined from at least one same image as from which image the predefined input is detected (e.g. p. 4-5 & Fig. 3); and the gaze point corresponds to a gaze point determined from at least one previous image to the image from which the predefined input is detected. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Preston teaches the projector device is arranged to generate the virtual user interface by projecting the virtual user interface to at least one of: a physical surface (e.g. [0024, 0025]: project image of buttons on surface of elevator); and air. Regarding claim 7, Preston teaches the projector device is arranged to project the virtual user interface to the physical surface with a light beam (e.g. [0024, 0025]). Regarding claims 8-10, claims are rejected in view of rejections of claims 6 and 16. Limitations recited in the claims further limit “air” recited in claims 6 and 16; and, claims 6 and16 have been rejected in view of “physical surface”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm. 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. /KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 23, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112
Apr 15, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600597
METHOD OF ESTIMATING AND COMPENSATING INTERFERENCE TORQUE OF LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589973
METHOD AND ELEVATOR CONTROL ARRANGEMENT FOR CONTROLLING A MAINTENANCE MODE OF AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587124
HIGH POWER BATTERY-POWERED SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583431
Method for Managing Power Consumption of a Railway Vehicle, and Railway Vehicle With Improved Power Consumption Management
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587117
Control Device and Method for Adjusting Speed and Forward/Reverse Rotation of a Wire-Controlled Brushless Motor Power Supply During Positive/Negative Half-Cycle Phase Loss
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
73%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 765 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