Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/119,956

WORK MACHINE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 10, 2023
Priority
Mar 18, 2022 — JP 2022-044240
Examiner
KAERCHER, ASHLEY ANGELINE
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
58 granted / 75 resolved
+25.3% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
6 currently pending
Career history
81
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 75 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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. Claims 1, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Shaffer (US 11,771,004). Regarding claim 1, Bendig discloses a work machine comprising: a power source [12]; a rotation shaft [30] that is rotated by power of the power source [12]; a cutter blade [45] that is rotated by the rotation shaft [30] to cut a plant on the ground (The lawn); a housing that houses the cutter blade [17, 18, 19], the housing having and has an opening through which the cutter blade [45] is exposed to the ground (as is necessary to cut grass), a side surface [18] and an upper surface [17], and wherein the housing has a charging port [21] provided on the upper surface [17] through which an object to be cut is charged to the cutter blade [45]; a lid portion [13A] that covers the charging port [21]; an input unit to which an instruction to switch a magnitude of an output of the power source [12] is input (The described work machine will naturally have a power button/switch mechanism in order to turn the work machine on, this will change output of the power source from 0 to a number with a magnitude greater than 0.). However, Bendig does not disclose a control unit configured to control the output of the power source based on an input result input to the input unit; and a sensor unit configured to detect whether or not the charging port is covered by the lid portion, wherein the control unit is configured to control the output of the power source on a detection result of the sensor unit. Shaffer discloses a work machine comprising a power source [1175]; a rotation shaft (Column 4 lines 65-66) that is rotated by power of the power source [1175]; a cutter blade [1135] that is rotated by the rotation shaft (Column 4 lines 65-66) to cut a plant on the ground (The lawn); a housing that houses the cutter blade [1135], the housing having and has an opening through which the cutter blade [1135] is exposed to the ground (as is necessary to cut grass), a side surface and an upper surface (The top surface of the cutting deck); a lid portion [1150] that covers the charging port (Column 5 lines 24-25 discloses the control system is usable with any work machine disclosed, therefore any of the disclosed passages that when closed contains the grass trimmings may be defined as the charging port such as 951.); an input unit (Work machine power button or switch) to which an instruction to switch a magnitude of an output of the power source is input [1175]); a control unit [1115] configured to control the output of the power source [1175] based on an input result input to the input unit (When the power switch or input unit is switched on, the control unit receives that result and controls the output of the power source to a magnitude other than zero.); and a sensor unit [1145] configured to detect whether or not the charging port is covered by the lid portion [1150], wherein the control unit [1115] is configured to control the output of the power source [1175] on a detection result of the sensor unit [1145] (Fig. 11 and column 5 lines 1-6 discloses he control receives input from the sensor unit which detects whether the work machine is in a mulching mode wherein the charging port is closed or bagging mode wherein the charging port is open, and then changes the speed and therefore magnitude of the output of the power source based on that sensor input). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shaffer’s control unit, lid sensor, and method of operating the power source at a lower speed while the lid is shut and a higher speed while the door is open to Bendig’s work machine leading to different power outputs in order to conserve power as necessary (Shaffer, column 5 lines 17-21). Regarding claim 8, Bendig and Shaffer disclose the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a hopper [13, Bendig] connected to the charging port [21, Bendig]. Regarding claim 10, Bendig and Shaffer disclose the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a wheel [11, Bendig]. Regarding claim 11, Bendig and Shaffer disclose the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the object to be cut is a plant body mainly including a plant, a lawn, and a weed (Bendig’s column 2 lines 28-30 disclose the object to be cut is garden refuse i.e. grass clippings, weeds, etc.). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Shaffer (US 11,771,004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pellenc (US 2018/0310471). Regarding claim 5, Bendig and Shaffer disclose the work machine according to claim 1. However, Bendig and Shaffer do not disclose wherein: the control unit is configured to control a height from the ground to the cutter blade based on the input result input to the input unit, wherein the height control unit performs control to raise the height from the ground to the cutter blade in a case where the input result includes selection of increasing the output of the power source. Pellenc discloses a work machine comprising a power source [12], a control unit [40], a cutter blade [24], and a height control unit [16]; wherein: the control unit [40] is configured to control a height from the ground to the cutter blade [24] based on the input result input to an input unit [40] (Pellenc’s page 4 section 0081 lines 7-8 disclose an electric jack or height control unit [16] used to control a height from the ground to the cutter blade.), wherein the height control unit [16] performs control to raise the height from the ground to the cutter blade in a case where the input result includes selection of increasing the output of the power source [12] (Pellenc’s height control unit [16] which would be applied to Bendig’s height adjustment mechanism, requires electricity and therefore the input result of the cutting height will include an increase in the output of the power source.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pellenc’s cutting height adjustment mechanism and electric height control unit to Bendig and Shaffer’s work machine in order to be able to select which height the operator would like the grass to be cut to and to be able to control the height from the handle. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Shaffer (US 11,771,004) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchiumi (US 2020/0305344 A1). Regarding claim 9, Bendig and Shaffer disclose the work machine according to claim 1. However, Bendig and Shaffer do not further disclose a body portion having a passage through which a plant cut by the cutter blade is carried out from the housing; and a container removably attached to the body portion and containing the plant. Uchiumi discloses a lawn mower comprising a housing; a cutting blade [50]; a body portion [10] having a passage [12] through which a plant cut by the cutter blade is carried out from the housing [11]; and a container [60] removably attached to the body portion and containing the plant (Grass trimmings). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Uchiumi’s passage for carrying out the plant trimmed by the mower into a removable container to Bendig and Shaffer’s work machine in order to be able not leave grass trimmings on the ground after the work machine has mowed the area. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, and 10-11 under Bendig (US 4796416) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is agreed that Bendig does not recite the entirety of claim 1 as filed on 4/30/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Shaffer (US 11,771,004). Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Pellenc (US 2018/0310471) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is agreed that Bendig and Pellenc do not recite the entirety of claim 5 as filed on 4/30/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bendig (US 4796416) and Shaffer (US 11,771,004) in view of Pellenc (US 2018/0310471). Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under Bendig (US 4796416) in view of Uchiumi (US 2020/0305344 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is agreed that Bendig and Uchiumi do not disclose the entirety of claim 9 as filed on 4/30/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bendig (US 4796416) and Shaffer (US 11,771,004) in view of Uchiumi (US 2020/0305344 A1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brokaw (US 4057952) discloses a rotary mower and shredder device. McWilliams (US 3,808,782) discloses a shredder adapter. 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 ASHLEY A KAERCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0128. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7-11 AM). 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. /ASHLEY A KAERCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671 7/2/2026 /ADAM J BEHRENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 10, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 30, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 16, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12708068
ENERGY ABSORBING DEVICES
4y 1m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12690519
ACTIVELY VARIABLE SWATH GATE POSITION
3y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12677745
RAKE IMPLEMENT WITH MOVEABLE TONGUE
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12599063
Utility Vehicle Hay Fork Attachment Device
4y 2m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12550823
AGRICULTURAL HEADER WITH A DRAPER BELT INCLUDING A SEED SAVER DISPOSED BEHIND ONE OR MORE CROP RAMPS
3y 8m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+17.1%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 75 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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