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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/558,649; Outdoor Power Machine; filed on 11/02/2023, and amended on 4/16/2026. Claims 1 - 16 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 - 16 have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendment
Previously described claim objections with respect to claims 1, 11, 13, and 16, have been corrected by the amendment filed on 4/16/2026.
However, claim objections with regards to claims 7 and 13 which duplicate limitations already established by the independent claims 1 and 11 have not been corrected. Therefore, these objections remain as described below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to further clarify the arrangement of the steering assembly. Applicant has argued that the primary reference Ikeda does not disclose “a body and axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket”. This is correct, Ikeda describes the controls arrangement and movement, but is silent as to the construction of the moveable-lever pivoting assembly. However, an additional reference, Funk (US 11357170 B1) describes such an arrangement for a dual-axis pivoting control lever assembly.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 13 state a steering lever is movable between outboard and inboard positions along with the steering assembly, while claims 1 and 11 have previously established that the steering assembly moves between outboard and inboard positions and that the steering lever is mounted to the steering assembly.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 11 be found allowable, claims 7 and 13 respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 7 and 13 state a steering lever is movable between outboard and inboard positions along with the steering assembly, while claims 1 and 11 have previously established that the steering assembly moves between outboard and inboard positions and that the steering lever is mounted to the steering assembly.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2021/0086831 A1) in view of Funk (US 11357170 B1).
Regarding claim 1, in light of the above objection, Ikeda discloses;
An outdoor power machine, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
485
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a chassis (frame 10; fig. 1);
two or more drive wheel assemblies (deceleration mechanism 17; paragraph 28) physically mounted to the chassis,
each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (travel motor 16);
an electrical power pack (battery unit 4; paragraph 32) configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors;
one or more steer wheels (rear wheels 12); (Paragraph 29 describes the steering of the vehicle by the operation of steering levers to independently drive the right and left, rear wheels.)
a steering assembly (fig. 3) configured to pivot relative to the chassis between an inboard use position and an outboard parked position, (Fig. 3 and paragraph 35 describe the steering assembly as consisting of a lever capable of pivoting fore-and-aft as well as outwards through a gated housing.)
PNG
media_image2.png
486
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a steering lever (steering lever 18) is pivotally mounted to the steering assembly such that it can move in a fore-aft direction to control one of the electric motors (travel motor 16). (Paragraph 29 describes the operation pathway of the steering levers.)
Ikeda does not disclose a body and axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket. However, Funk teaches;
a steering assembly (pivot assembly 72; fig. 4A/4B) including a body (housing 18; fig. 2) and an axle (pin 32) extending through the body, the body being connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket (bosses 34 and 38; fig. 4, col. 5, lines 25-50), the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis between an inboard use position and an outboard parked position via the hinged bracket, (Col. 3, line 40 to col. 4, line 2 describe the functionality of the steering levers and their movement between drive and parked conditions an use for vehicle steering.)
wherein a steering lever (handle 90) is pivotally mounted to the steering assembly via the axle (pin 32) such that it can move in a fore-aft direction to control one of the electric motors. (Funk pivots the levers to an outward / inward position along the axle (pin 32) while utilizing the hinge (bosses 34 and 38) for the forward / backwards rotation of the steering levers. However, Funk (col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 9) describe the two-axis pivot assembly as applicable to multiple systems, therefore it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reverse fore-aft and outward / inward controls arrangement, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a body with an axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket, as taught by Funk, as the references and the claimed invention are directed towards two-axis, pivoting vehicle control arrangements. As disclosed by Funk, it is well known for two-axis, pivoting vehicle control arrangements to include a body with an axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda as described above to include the modifications as taught by Funk, as such a modification would provide for a simplification of the manufacturing process and a reduction in cost . (Col. 1, lines 34-43).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering assembly is pivotally mounted to a control pedestal which is mounted to the chassis. (Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the position of the steering levers and gated housing on the mower. The mounting of the steering assembly is not illustrated, but the assemblies are understood to affix to the vehicle in such a manner that the lever can be moved, as shown in fig. 3) in relation to its base in order to transfer control instructions to the wheel drive mechanisms.)
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering assembly includes a parking sensor (brake position sensor 32; fig. 3, paragraph 35) that is configured to generate a signal indicative whether the steering assembly is in inboard use position or the outboard parked position. (Paragraph 35 describes brake position sensor and travel position sensors as detecting the operation position of the steering lever. Paragraph 38 describes the brake position sensor as detecting the position of the steering lever in the outboard, parked position.)
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the parking sensor (brake position sensor 32) is electrically connected to the control system of the outdoor power machine. (Paragraph 38 describes the brake positions sensor as connected to the brake control unit.)
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering lever (steering lever 18) is movable between the outboard parked position and the inboard use position with the steering assembly. (Fig. 3 and paragraph 35 describe the steering lever which pivots fore-and-aft as well as outwards through a gated housing.)
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering lever is coupled to a sensor (travel position sensor 30; paragraph 36) configured to generate a signal indicative of the position of the steering lever. (Paragraph 36 describes the travel position sensors as detecting the operation position of the steering lever within the travel operation pathway.)
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda discloses;
wherein one steering assembly is provided for each of the left and right sides of the outdoor power machine. (Fig. 2 and paragraph 16, describe steering levers and corresponding gated housings located to the left and right sides of the vehicle.)
Claim(s) 4, 9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2021/0086831 A1) in view of Funk (US 11357170 B1) and further in view of Yang (EP 3760021 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda discloses a parking sensor but does not disclose a sensor which is magnetic. However, Yang teaches;
wherein the parking sensor (magnet sensor 172) is magnetic. (Paragraph 36 describes the use of a magnetic element and magnet sensor to determine the position of the operating bar between its inboard and outboard positions.)
PNG
media_image3.png
445
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a sensor which is magnetic, as taught by Yang, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to mower control-lever position determination. As disclosed by Yang, it is well known for a mower control-lever position to be determined utilizing a sensor which is magnetic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to include a sensor which is magnetic, as taught by Yang, as such a modification would provide a reliable detection method with a long service life. (Paragraph 4 of Yang).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda does not disclose a pair of balancing springs attached to the steering lever, However, Yang teaches;
wherein the steering lever is attached to a spring (spring 255; fig. 30, paragraph 142) configured such that the steering lever is biased to a neutral position between the fore and aft positions. (Paragraph 142 and fig. 30, illustrate a spring which biases the steering lever towards a central, neutral position between the fore and aft positions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the spring 255 and place the second spring opposite the first spring, to further bias the steering lever to a neutral position, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.)
Regarding claim 11, Ikeda discloses;
An outdoor power machine, comprising:
an electrical power pack configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors;
a chassis (frame 10; fig. 1);
two or more drive wheel assemblies (deceleration mechanism 17; paragraph 28) physically mounted to the chassis,
each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (travel motor 16);
one or more steer wheels (rear wheels 12);
a steering assembly (fig. 3) configured to pivot relative to the chassis between an inboard use position and an outboard parked position, (Fig. 3 and paragraph 35 describe the steering assembly as consisting of a lever capable of pivoting fore-and-aft as well as outwards through a gated housing.)
wherein a steering lever (steering lever 18) is pivotally mounted to the steering assembly such that it can move in a fore-aft direction to control one of the electric motors (travel motor 16). (Paragraph 29 describes the operation pathway of the steering levers.)
wherein the parking sensor (brake position sensor 32) is electrically connected to a control system of the outdoor power machine. (Paragraph 38 describes the brake positions sensor as connected to the brake control unit.)
Ikeda discloses a parking sensor that is configured to generate a signal indicative of whether the steering assembly is in the inboard use position or the outboard parked position, but does not disclose a sensor which is magnetic. However, Yang teaches;
a magnetic parking sensor (magnet sensor 172); (Paragraph 36 of Yang, describes the use of a magnetic element and magnet sensor to determine the position of the operating bar between its inboard and outboard positions.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a sensor which is magnetic, as taught by Yang, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to mower control-lever position determination. As disclosed by Yang, it is well known for a mower control-lever position to be determined utilizing a sensor which is magnetic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to include a sensor which is magnetic, as taught by Yang, as such a modification would provide a reliable detection method with a long service life. (Paragraph 4 of Yang).
Ikeda does not disclose a body and axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket. However, Funk teaches;
a steering assembly (pivot assembly 72; fig. 4A/4B) including a body (housing 18; fig. 2) and an axle (pin 32) extending through the body, the body being connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket (bosses 34 and 38; fig. 4, col. 5, lines 25-50), the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis between an inboard use position and an outboard parked position via the hinged bracket, (Col. 3, line 40 to col. 4, line 2 describe the functionality of the steering levers and their movement between drive and parked conditions an use for vehicle steering.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a body with an axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket, as taught by Funk, as the references and the claimed invention are directed towards two-axis, pivoting vehicle control arrangements. As disclosed by Funk, it is well known for two-axis, pivoting vehicle control arrangements to include a body with an axle extending through the body, the body connected to the chassis by a hinged bracket and the steering assembly configured to pivot relative to the chassis via the hinged bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda as described above to include the modifications as taught by Funk, as such a modification would provide for a simplification of the manufacturing process and a reduction in cost . (Col. 1, lines 34-43).
Regarding claim 13, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering lever (steering lever 18) is attached to and movable between the outboard parked position and the inboard use position with the steering assembly. (Fig. 3 and paragraph 35 describe the steering lever which pivots fore-and-aft as well as outwards through a gated housing.)
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda discloses;
wherein the steering lever is coupled to a sensor (travel position sensor 30; paragraph 36) configured to generate a signal indicative of the position of the steering lever.
Regarding claim 15, Ikeda does not disclose a pair of balancing springs attached to the steering lever, However, Yang teaches;
wherein the steering lever is attached to a spring (spring 255; fig. 30, paragraph 142) configured such that the steering lever is biased to a neutral position between the fore and aft positions. (Paragraph 142 and fig. 30, illustrate a spring which biases the steering lever towards a central, neutral position between the fore and aft positions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the spring 255 and place the second spring opposite the first spring, to further bias the steering lever to a neutral position, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.)
Regarding claim 16, in light of the above objection, Ikeda discloses;
PNG
media_image4.png
494
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein one steering assembly is provided for each of the left and right sides of the outdoor power machine. (Fig. 2 and paragraph 16, describe steering levers and corresponding gated housings located to the left and right sides of the vehicle.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2021/0086831 A1) in view of Funk (US 11357170 B1) and further in view of Dunbar (US 2019/0274251 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda does not disclose a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position. However, Dunbar teaches;
wherein the steering assembly includes a parking spring (spring 140; fig. 3, paragraph 15) attached configured such that the steering assembly is biased to the outboard parked position. (Paragraph 15 describes the use of a spring to bias the lever in a neutral position with the parking brake disengaged and a second, outboard position with the parking brake engaged.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position, as taught by Dunbar, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to mower control-lever operation. As disclosed by Dunbar, it is well known for a mower control lever operation to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position, as taught by Dunbar, as such a modification would prevent unintended movement of the mower.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2021/0086831 A1) in view of Funk (US 11357170 B1) and Yang (EP 3760021 B1) and further in view of Dunbar (US 2019/0274251 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda does not disclose a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position. However, Dunbar teaches;
wherein the steering assembly includes a parking spring (spring 140; fig. 3, paragraph 15) configured such that the assembly is biased to the outboard parked position. (Paragraph 15 describes the use of a spring to bias the lever in a neutral position with the parking brake disengaged and a second, outboard position with the parking brake engaged.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ikeda to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position, as taught by Dunbar, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to mower control-lever operation. As disclosed by Dunbar, it is well known for a mower control lever operation to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ikeda to include a parking spring configured to bias the steering assembly to the outboard, parked position, as taught by Dunbar, as such a modification would prevent unintended movement of the mower.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights