Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/105,403

SOLUTION FOR MANAGING USAGE DATA OF AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM OPERATING IN A CONSTRUCTION TIME USE MODE

Non-Final OA §101§103
Filed
Feb 03, 2023
Examiner
GLASS, ERICK DAVID
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
626 granted / 700 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
723
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 700 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103
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 § 101 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) managing data of elevator operating system; obtaining data, comparing data, detecting data and generating signal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because management of data is nothing more than mathematical calculations which can be performed by any general computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of obtaining/comparing/detecting data does not put it into practical application. With respect to claim 1, the claim merely obtains data, compares data and ends with generating signal, which can be performed by any general computer. Generating a control signal based on the deviation is just an extra post solution activity. With respect to claim 8, it recites additional elements of processing unit and memory which are physical, but general computer parts does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonnenmoser (PGPUB 2016/0185569) With respect to claim 1, Sonnenmoser teaches a method for managing usage data of an elevator system operating in a construction time use (CTU) mode, the method comprising: obtaining statistical usage data of the elevator system (paragraph 0030; detects use data), comparing the obtained statistical usage data to reference data (paragraph 0032), detecting that the obtained statistical usage data deviates at least partly from the reference data (paragraph 0034), and generating at least one control signal comprising an indication of the detected deviation to at least one operator system in response to the detection of the deviation (paragraph 0037; signal can be adapted). Sonnenmoser does not explicitly teach operating elevator in a CTU mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operation of elevator in a construction mode, as its well known in the art. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). With respect to claim 2, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the reference data is predefined (paragraph 0012; preset), dynamically adjusted, or defined based on previously obtained statistical usage data. With respect to claim 3, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the step of detecting the deviation comprises detecting that the obtained statistical usage data deviates from the reference data at least by a predefined difference value (paragraph 0037; the std deviation). With respect to claim 4, Sonnenmoser does not teach wherein the statistical usage data comprises at least one of: a number of departures of at least one elevator car during a predefined period of time, a number of departures of at least one elevator car from each departure floors during a predefined period of time, a number of arrivals of at least one elevator car to each destination floors during a predefined period of time, a weight of a load of at least one elevator carat the departure of said elevator car , and/or a response time of an elevator call. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to count opening or departures, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With respect to claim 5, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one control signal further comprises at least one recommended action that depends on the obtained statistical usage data (paragraph 0036; O opening time). With respect to claim 6, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the statistical usage data of the elevator system (fig. 1, 2) is obtained from an elevator control unit (fig. 1, 4.5) of the elevator system and/or a separate unit (fig. 1). With respect to claim 7, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one operator system comprises an operator system (paragraph 003) of the elevator system, Sonnenmoser does not teach the operator system of a construction site comprising the elevator system, and/or an operator system of a building. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operation of elevator in at construction site, as its well known in art. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). With respect to claim 8, Sonnenmoser teaches computing unit for managing usage data of an elevator system, wherein the elevator system is configured to operate in a construction time use mode, the computing unit comprises: a processing unit (fig. 1, 4.6), and a memory unit (fig. 1, 4.5) storing at least one portion of computer program code, wherein the processing unit being configured to cause the computing unit (fig. 1, 4) at least to perform: obtain statistical usage data of the elevator system (paragraph 0030; detects use data), compare the obtained statistical usage data to a reference data (paragraph 0032), detect that the obtained statistical usage data deviates from the reference data (paragraph 0034), and generate at least one control signal comprising an indication of the detected deviation to at least one operator system in response to the detection of the deviation (paragraph 0037; signal can be adapted). Sonnenmoser does not explicitly teach a computer program code. Chen teaches a computer program code (column 3, lines 47-58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operation of elevator to be controlled by computer program, as its well known in the art. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). With respect to claim 9, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the reference data is predefined (paragraph 0012; preset), dynamically adjusted, or defined based on previously obtained statistical usage data. With respect to claim 10, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the detection of the deviation comprises detecting that the obtained statistical usage data deviates from the reference data at least by a predefined difference value (paragraph 0012; the std deviation). With respect to claim 11, Sonnenmoser does not teach wherein the statistical usage data comprises at least one of: a number of departures of at least one elevator car during a predefined period of time, a number of departures of at least one elevator car from each departure floors during a predefined period of time, a number of arrivals of at least one elevator car to each destination floors during a predefined period of time, a weight of a load of at least one elevator carat the departure of said elevator car , and/or a response time of an elevator call. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to count opening or departures, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With respect to claim 12, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one control signal further comprises at least one recommended action that depends on the obtained statistical usage data (paragraph 0036; O opening time). With respect to claim 13, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the statistical usage data of the elevator system (fig. 1, 2) is obtained from an elevator control unit (fig. 1, 4.5) of the elevator system and/or a separate unit (fig. 1). With respect to claim 14, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one operator system comprises an operator system (paragraph 003) of the elevator system, Sonnenmoser does not teach the operator system of a construction site comprising the elevator system, and/or an operator system of a building. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operation of elevator in at construction site, as its well known in art. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). With respect to claim 15, Sonnenmoser teaches at least one operator system and a computing unit according to claim8, wherein the computing unit (fig. 1, 4) and the at least one operator system (fig. 1, 2) are communicatively coupled with each other (inherent operating systems and evaluating unit/control are coupled). With respect to claim 16, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the step of detecting the deviation comprises detecting that the obtained statistical usage data deviates from the reference data at least by a predefined difference value (paragraph 0037; the std deviation). With respect to claim 17, Sonnenmoser does not teach wherein the statistical usage data comprises at least one of: a number of departures of at least one elevator car during a predefined period of time, a number of departures of at least one elevator car from each departure floors during a predefined period of time, a number of arrivals of at least one elevator car to each destination floors during a predefined period of time, a weight of a load of at least one elevator car at the departure of said elevator car , and/or a response time of an elevator call. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to count opening or departures, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With respect to claim 18, Sonnenmoser does not teach wherein the statistical usage data comprises at least one of: a number of departures of at least one elevator car during a predefined period of time, a number of departures of at least one elevator car from each departure floors during a predefined period of time, a number of arrivals of at least one elevator car to each destination floors during a predefined period of time, a weight of a load of at least one elevator carat the departure of said elevator car , and/or a response time of an elevator call. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to count opening or departures, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With respect to claim 19, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one control signal further comprises at least one recommended action that depends on the obtained statistical usage data (paragraph 0036; O opening time). With respect to claim 20, Sonnenmoser teaches wherein the at least one control signal further comprises at least one recommended action that depends on the obtained statistical usage data (paragraph 0036; O opening time). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm. 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. /ERICK D GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580504
CURRENT BASED RESONANT FREQUENCY TRACKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573973
SALIENCY TRACKING FOR BRUSHLESS DC MOTORS AND OTHER PERMANENT MAGNET SYNCHRONOUS MOTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559343
EMERGENCY TERMINAL DECELERATION IN ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552647
HOIST APPARATUS COMPRISING A MONITORING DEVICE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USING THE HOIST APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12556114
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN OPERATING DEVICE COMPRISING A MASTER ACTUATOR AND A SLAVE ACTUATOR AND ASSOCIATED HOME AUTOMATION SHADING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
89%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 700 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