Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/955,586

ELECTRIC WORKING MACHINE WITH OPTIMALLY LOCATED DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2022
Examiner
WEBB, SUNNY DANIELLE
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
37 granted / 45 resolved
+30.2% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
83
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 105612906 A) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 12150404 B2) and Osborne (US 7318309 B2). Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an electric working machine (see Fig. 1), comprising: a machine body (see below); a motor [8] mounted on the machine body; a working part [16] driven by motive power of the motor and configured to perform work (see paragraph [0012], lines 9-13); an operation part (see below) operated by a user and configured to control an operation of at least one of the working part (see paragraph [0012], lines 9-13) or the motor; a handle [12] that extends rearward with respect to the machine body and is gripped by a user of the electric working machine at least when the machine body is caused to travel; and a display device [13] disposed provided on the machine body handle and including a display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4), wherein the operation part comprises: a blade operating portion [23] that is configured to control the driving of the motor, thereby driving the working part (see paragraph [0012], lines 9-13), and the display device is disposed to be separated from and forward (see Fig. 1) of the blade operating portion. PNG media_image1.png 461 632 media_image1.png Greyscale But Liu fails to disclose the motor being driven by electric power supplied from a battery and wherein the operation part comprises a movement operating portion that is provided on a grip portion of the handle for being gripped by the user and is configured to control driving of the motor, thereby driving a driving wheel provided for the machine body and moving the machine body, and a blade operating portion that is provided between the display device and the movement operating portion, and wherein a first distance between the blade operating portion and the display device is shorter than a second distance between the movement operating portion and the display device. Yamaoka et al. discloses a similar electric working machine [100] comprising of a motor [122] driven by electric power supplied from a battery ([151]; see Col. 6, lines 49-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the motor of Liu with the electric motor of Yamaoka et al. since both are a device that supplies power to the working machine; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. But Yamaoka et al. fails to disclose wherein the operation part comprises a movement operating portion that is provided on a grip portion of the handle for being gripped by the user and is configured to control driving of the motor, thereby driving a driving wheel provided for the machine body and moving the machine body, and a blade operating portion that is provided between the display device and the movement operating portion, and wherein a first distance between the blade operating portion and the display device is shorter than a second distance between the movement operating portion and the display device. Osborne discloses a similar electric working machine [LM] comprising of an operation part [12] operated by a user and configured to control an operation of at least one of the working part (controls working part through [OPC], see Col. 5, lines 53-67) or the motor (controls motor through speed control [20], see Col. 6, lines 16-21); wherein the operation part comprises a movement operating portion [20] that is provided on a grip portion [18] of the handle [H] for being gripped by the user and is configured to control driving of the motor (controls driving of the motor through controlling the speed, see Col. 7, lines 48-59), thereby driving a driving wheel [WD] provided for the machine body and moving the machine body, and a blade operating portion [OPC] that is provided in front of the movement operating portion (see Fig. 1A) and is configured to control the driving of the motor, thereby driving the working part (see Col. 5, lines 53-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the operation part of Liu with the operating part of Osborne since both are mechanisms used to drive the motor and cutting elements of the lawnmower, yielding the same predictable result; as well as increasing the safety for the operator through controlling the power being transferred to the motor and cutting elements (see Osborne Col. 5, lines 53-67 and Col. 7, lines 48-59). It can be seen then that when the operating portion of Osborne is applied to the working machine of Liu, the blade operating portion is provided between the display device and the movement operating portion (blade operating portion is in front of the movement operating portion of Osborne, but would be between the display device and the movement portion when applied to Liu, see Osborne’s Fig. 1a), and wherein a first distance between the blade operating portion and the display device is shorter than a second distance between the movement operating portion and the display device (blade operating portion of Osborne is between the display device and the movement operating portion; therefore, the distance between the blade operating portion and the display device is shorter than the distance between the movement operating portion and the display device). Regarding claim 6, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4) has an input function of receiving a setting related to an operation (see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4) of the electric working machine (see Fig. 1) from the user. Regarding claim 9, Osborne, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the grip portion [18] arranged transverse in relation to the handle [H], but fails to disclose wherein the display and the grip portion are arranged in parallel to each other. However, Liu discloses the display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4) arranged transverse in relation to the handle [12]. It can be seen then that when the operating portion of Osborne is applied to the working machine of Liu and Yamaoka et al. that the display of Liu is arranged parallel with the grip portion due both the display and the grip portion being arranged transverse to the handle. Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 105612906 A) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 12150404 B2) and Osborne (US 7318309 B2) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Gunter (DE 10327223 A1). Regarding claim 2, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses imaging information (see paragraph [0012], lines 7-8) displayed on the display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4) of the display device [13], but fails to explicitly disclose an imaging portion provided at a front portion of the machine body and configured to capture an area forward of the machine body, and the motor is disposed between the imaging portion and the display device. Gunter teaches a similar electric working machine (see Fig. 1) comprising an imaging portion [4] provided at a front portion (see below) of the machine body (see below) and configured to capture an area forward of the machine body (see paragraph [0006], lines 4-8). PNG media_image2.png 243 559 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging portion of Gunter on the electric working machine of Liu, Yamaoka et al., and Osborne in order to create an image of the ground surface the mower is traveling on (see Gunter paragraph [0006], lines 4-8); therefore, the motor of Liu is disposed between the location of the imaging portion of Gunter and the display device of Liu. Regarding claim 3, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the operation part (see above) is provided on the handle [12], and a cover [1] configured to cover the motor [8], but fails to disclose the handle comprises a pivot portion pivotally supported by the machine body, and when the handle is pivoted forward about the pivot portion, the display device is disposed forward of a cover configured to cover the motor. However, Yamaoka et al. discloses a handle [14] that comprises a pivot portion [107] pivotally supported by the machine body [11], and when the handle is pivoted forward about the pivot portion (see Col. 7, lines 2-6), it is disposed forward of a cover (see below) configured to cover the motor [122]. PNG media_image3.png 481 377 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pivot portion of Yamaoka et al. on the handle of Liu in order for the user to be able to adjust the handle to their preferred height and to rotate the handle for storage of the mower (see Yamaoka et al. Col. 7, lines 2-6 and Col. 10, lines 18-21). Regarding claim 4, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the machine body (see above) comprises the cover [1] that covers an upper portion of a body (cover covers the entire machine body, see Fig. 1) accommodating the motor [8], and an upper end (top of cover is upper end, see Fig. 1) of the cover that is an uppermost portion (upper end is uppermost portion, see Fig. 1), but fails to disclose the imaging portion is disposed below an upper end of the cover that is an uppermost portion. However, Gunter discloses wherein the imaging portion [4] is disposed below an upper end (see below) of the machine body (see above; imaging portion is underneath the machine body). PNG media_image4.png 248 561 media_image4.png Greyscale It can be seen then that when the imaging portion of Gunter is provided to the working machine of Liu, Yamaoka et al., and Osborne that the imaging portion is disposed below an upper end of the cover that is an uppermost portion as disclosed by Gunter (imaging portion is underneath the machine body, see Fig. 1). Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 105612906 A) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 12150404 B2), Osborne (US 7318309 B2 and Gunter (DE 10327223 A1) as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Peters (US 2019/0009850 A1). Regarding claim 5, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the display device [13] comprises a frame (see below) configured to hold the display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4), the frame extends from the display along a direction orthogonal (see below) to a direction (see below) in which the handle [12] extends. PNG media_image5.png 445 472 media_image5.png Greyscale But Liu fails to disclose an end portion of the frame is pivotally supported on the handle via a fastener. Peters discloses a similar frame [12] for a display device (see paragraph [0016], lines 2- 4) wherein an end portion [114] of the frame is pivotally supported (pivots around handle by tightening or loosening fastener; see paragraph [0018], lines 1-4) on the handle (see paragraph [0015], lines 1-2) via a fastener [42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frame of Liu with the frame of Peters since both are frames holding the display device; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. Regarding claim 10, Liu, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the display device [13] comprises a frame (see above) configured to hold the display (display of [13]; see paragraph [0013], lines 3-4), but fails to disclose the frame is pivotally supported on the handle via a fastener, the blade operating portion comprises a connecting section pivotally supported on the handle, and the fastener is disposed forward of the connecting section. However, Osborne discloses the blade operating portion [OPC] comprises a connecting section (section connecting [OPC] to handle [H], see Col. 5, lines 32-35) pivotally supported on the handle [H]. It can be seen then that when Liu’s operating portion is substituted with Osborne’s operating portion that the blade operating portion is pivotally supported on the handle of Liu as disclosed by Osborne. But Osborne fails to disclose the frame is pivotally supported on the handle via a fastener and the fastener is disposed forward of the connecting section. Peters discloses a similar frame [12] for a display device (see paragraph [0016], lines 2-4) wherein the frame is pivotally supported (pivots around handle by tightening or loosening fastener; see paragraph [0018], lines 1-4) on the handle (see paragraph [0015], lines 1-2) via a fastener [42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frame of Liu with the frame of Peters since both are frames holding the display device, yielding the same predictable result; therefore, when the frame of Peters is applied to the working machine of Liu, Yamaoka et al., and Osborne, the fastener of Peters is disposed forward of the connecting section due to the display device being forward of the blade operating portion. Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 105612906 A) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 12150404 B2) and Osborne (US 7318309 B2 as applied to claims 1, 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Daly (US 7367173 B2). Regarding claim 7, the working machine is disclosed as applied above, but the combination fails to disclose wherein the display has a function of displaying a plurality of options for the user to select a work mode of the working part, and the working part operates in accordance with the work mode that has been selected. Daly discloses a similar electric working machine [10] wherein the display [56] has a function (displays a user interface; see Col. 3, lines 18-20) of displaying a plurality of options (see Col. 4, lines 6-8) for the user to select a work mode (selecting different rates or speeds of working part, see Col. 4, lines 6-8) of the working part [14], and the working part operates in accordance with the work mode that has been selected (see Col. 4, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the option function of Daly on the display of Liu in order for the user to control features such as pre-set reel seeds, clip rates, and/or ground speeds (see Daly Col. 4, lines 6-8). Regarding claim 8, Daly et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the display [56] is configured to display, as pieces of working machine [10] information, at least two or more pieces of information among operation information (see Col. 4, lines 6-8) of the working part [14], drive information of the motor (controller [58] controls motor, displays information on display [56], see Col. 3, lines 18-20 and 36-37), travel information of the machine body, electric power information of the battery, position information of the machine body, and sensor information of a sensor (see Col. 3, lines 49-52) attached to the machine body, and the display displays information selected by the user from among the pieces of working machine information (see Col. 3, lines 24-30). Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 105612906 A) in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 12150404 B2) and Osborne (US 7318309 B2) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 9 above, and further in view of Scanland et al. (US 4514967 A). Regarding claim 11, Yamaoka et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses a power supply portion [143 and 146] configured to turn on at least one of the motor (see Col. 7, lines 6-13 and 26-29), the working part, the operation part, or the display device, wherein the power supply portion is disposed on the handle (see Figs. 1 and 3), but the combination fails to disclose the display device is disposed rearward of the power supply portion. Scanland et al. discloses a similar working machine (see Fig. 1) comprising of a power supply portion [28] disposed on the lower portion of the handle [22]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the power supply portion of Yamaoka et al. with the power supply portion of Scanland et al. in order to selectively control the speed of the engine separate from the controls for the blades (see Scanland et al. Col. 2, lines 66-68 and Col. 3, lines 1-3). Examiner’s Note: Osborne’s blade operating portion [OPC] disables and activates the motor and cutting elements through an ON and OFF state (see Osborne Col. 5, lines 53-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-5), but does not start the motor as is taught by Yamaoka et al.’s power supply portion above. Response to Arguments Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Osborne (US 7318309 B2). Applicant’s arguments in page 2 set forth that the display device of Liu is not forward of the operating device of Liu as previously identified, nor is the blade operating portion provided between the display and the movement operating portion. However, substituting the operating portion of Liu with the operating portion of Osborne not only provides a similar movement and blade operating portion as described within applicant’s specification, but also teaches the limitations of positioning the display device with regards to the operating portion. It can be seen then that when Osborne’s operating portion is applied to Liu’s working machine that the display device is positioned forward and separate of the operating portion, and the blade operating portion is provided between the display device and the movement operating portion (see Osborne’s Fig. 1A). Further, the distance between the blade operating portion and the display portion is shorter than the distance between the movement operating portion and the display portion due to the blade operating portion being between the display device and the movement operating portion. The rejection of Liu, Yamaoka et al., and Osborne meets the newly added claim limitations; therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T.. 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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. /SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2022
Application Filed
May 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 13, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 27, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599817
MOWER, GROUND MAINTENANCE SYSTEM AND GROUND MAINTENANCE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593756
ROUND BALER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582042
AUTONOMOUS TRAVELING WORK APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568887
GRAIN CLEANING SYSTEM WITH GRAIN CHUTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564134
AGRICULTURAL DEVICE EQUIPPED WITH A PICK-UP MECHANISM AND A CROSS CONVEYOR BELT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 45 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