Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/101,797

POWER EQUIPMENT MACHINE WITH FOOT PEDAL STEERING AND SPEED CONTROLS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 26, 2023
Examiner
MEISLAHN, DOUGLAS JAMES
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mtd Products Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
12 granted / 22 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
32
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 22 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 . Application Status Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, and 5 were amended in the correspondence received 17 October 2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US 8844657). With respect to claim 1, Clark discloses an outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand-on lawnmower, which reads on outdoor power equipment), comprising: a frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses a stand0be lawnmower 100 that has a mowing deck 103, wheels 110 and 112, an operator platform 101 all connected together; the apparatus on which these elements reside reads on a frame); a plurality of drive elements coupled to the frame (in figure 1, Clark discloses wheels 110 and 112 as well as hydraulic motor 108 that drives the right wheel; hydraulic motor 106 that drives the left wheel is disclosed in figure 2; the wheels and/or wheel motor read on a plurality of drive elements); a prime mover configured to provide power to the plurality of drive elements (in figure 2, Clark discloses hydraulic pump 114, which provides power to motors 108 and 106; see also lines 26-39 of column 2); an operator standing platform secured to a rear of the frame and behind the prime mover (in figures 1-3, Clark discloses a platform 101 with foot pedals 102 and 104 that is located behind the prime mover/hydraulic pump 114), the operating standing platform comprising one or more controls configured to receive foot-based inputs from an operator of the outdoor power equipment (in figure 1, Clark discloses pedals 102 and 104 which read on controls that receive foot-based inputs – see also the abstract of Clark and lines 49-61 of column 2); and a control system configured to control a steering and a speed of the outdoor power equipment based on the foot-based inputs (in figures 1-3 – 2 in particular – Clark discloses a control system by which adjustment of the pedals 102 and 104 steers and accelerates or brakes the lawnmower; see also the abstract which explains that the drive wheels are controlled by the foot pedals). With respect to claim 2, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the one or more controls comprise a left control and a right control (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the foot pedals control either the left or the right wheel). With respect to claim 3, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 2. Clark further discloses the plurality of drive elements comprises one or more left drive elements and one or more right drive elements (in figure 1, Clark discloses that left and right wheels as well as right wheel motor 108; figure 2 discloses left wheel motor 106), wherein the control system is configured to control a left speed of the one or more left drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the left control, wherein the control system is configured to control a right speed of the one or more right drive elements based on foot-based inputs received via the right control (in line 49 of column 2 through line 4 of column 3, Clark discloses controlling each of the driving wheels by the foot pedal that is on the same side as the wheel), and wherein the steering and the speed of the outdoor power equipment are based on the left speed and the right speed (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven in forward and reverse; in lines 26 through 39 of column 2, Clark discloses that the wheels can be driven at a desired speed and that they are independent; a system like this where the wheels can be driven in opposite rotations will turn, which anticipates steering). With respect to claim 4, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the one or more controls are configured to be operated by the operator in a standing position on the operator standing platform (in lines 44-48 of column 2, Clark discloses that the operator is in a standing position). With respect to claim 6, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the foot-based inputs comprise rotations of the one or more controls (in figure 3, Clark discloses bar 120 about which the foot pedals rotate). With respect to claim 7, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 6. Clark further discloses one or more mechanisms to bias each control of the one or more controls to a neutral position of that control (in figures 2 and 3, Clark discloses biasing springs 145 and 147 that bias the foot pedals back to their neutral positions, as described in lines 15-20 of column 3). With respect to claim 8, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the foot-based inputs comprise pressures applied to the one or more controls (in the abstract, Clark discloses independently moving pedals which, as shown in figures 1-3 by their ability to be rotated, are responsive to foot-based inputs where the inputs push on the controls, which reads on applying pressure). With respect to claim 9, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the control system is one or more of mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, hydraulic, hydrostatic, or pneumatic (in lines 26-30 of column 2, Clark discloses that the system can be hydraulic). With respect to claim 10, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the plurality of drive elements are one of a plurality of wheels or a plurality of tracks (in figure 1, Clark discloses that the drive elements are wheels). With respect to claim 11, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark further discloses the outdoor power equipment is a lawn maintenance apparatus (in the abstract, Clark discloses that the machine is a lawn mower, which is a type of lawn maintenance apparatus). 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Sugden et al. (US 2011/0277433 hereinafter Sugden). With respect to claim 5, Clark discloses the limitations of claim 1. Clark does not explicitly disclose the one of more controls are coupled to a suspension system. However, Sugden discloses one of more controls are coupled to a suspension system (in the abstract and paragraph 41, Sugden discloses that the entire body of a lawn working device operator and the controls 55 are supported by a suspension system 100). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to modify the outdoor power equipment of Clark by supporting the operator and hence the operator’s foot pedals with a suspension system as taught by Sugden with the motivation to “reduce the imposition of shock loads to operators” (Sugden, paragraph 5). 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 DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, 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, 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. /DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12532809
CONDITIONING ROLL TENSION CONTROL BY HEADER DRIVE PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12527259
LONGITUDINAL SIEVE COMPENSATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12514164
ADJUSTMENT ARRANGEMENT FOR A SIEVE IN AN AGRICULTURAL HARVESTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12490679
COMBINE HARVESTER SEPARATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12484483
SIEVE INSTALLATION ARRANGEMENT IN A CLEANING SYSTEM OF AN AGRICULTURAL HARVESTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
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
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 22 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