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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated July 13, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated April 21, 2026.
Addition of new claims 29 and 30 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of amendments made to the claims distinguishing them from the rejection. However, the amended claims are unpatentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Starting in the middle of page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant argues Staun does not teach the alternatives set forth in claim 1 with regard to receiving an identification signal. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Staun discloses different ways of identifying a received attachment and does not state only one way of identifying the received attachment may be used at a time. Examiner takes the position it would be reasonable to conclude Staun discloses multiple ways of identifying the received attachment are used together to identify different types of attachments which may or may not have a processor that sends an identification signal. The example given in paragraphs [0047] through [0049] illustrate this scenario. Immersion blender attachment 550 does not have a processor and would thus be identified through contact points on the attachment identifier when it is attached to handheld appliance 500, while mixer attachment 600 may have a processor which sends an electronic poll signal to handheld appliance 500 to identify it so that control of the motor may be transferred from handheld appliance 500 to mixer attachment 600.
Applicant then argues, in the middle of page 12, Staun does not disclose the subject matter of the amendment made to claim 1. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0298530 A1 by Staun, hereinafter “Staun”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0179886 A1 by Atinaja, hereinafter “Atinaja”.
Regarding claim 1, Staun discloses a food processing device (device appliance 100 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0033]) comprising:
a base housing (housing 105 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0034]) including:
an attachment receiver (¶[0033] discloses appliance 100 in Figs. 1 and 2 has an attachment receiver for removably coupling attachments 205 and 210 thereto) arranged to receive a food processing attachment configured to perform a food processing operation (attachments 205 and 210 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0033]), the attachment receiver including an electrical connector (electrical connector attachment identifier 140 in Fig. 4A; ¶[0037]) having a plurality of electrical contacts (contact points 142 and 144 in Fig. 4A; ¶[0037] and [0038]);
a motor (motor 145 in Fig. 8; ¶[0034]); and
a first processor configured to control the motor and including a plurality of ports, one or more ports of the plurality of ports configured to be in electrical communication with one or more electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts respectively (controller 40 with processor 42 in Fig. 8 is interfaced with the plurality of contacts of attachment identifier 140 in Fig. 4A and is configured to control motor 145; ¶[0040] and [0041]);
wherein the first processor is configured to:
periodically transmit a poll signal via the electrical connector to the received food processing attachment (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 may be configured to poll the received attachment for its type by wired message through attachment identifier 140);
monitor for a response from a second processor via the electrical connector (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 is configured to interface, e.g., monitor for a response, with a controller of a received attachment in instances where the received attachment includes a controller);
in response to receiving an identification signal in response to the poll signal at a first port of the plurality of ports via the electrical connector from a second processor in the received food processing attachment, identify the received food processing attachment (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 is configured to identify a received attachment in response to the identification signal received in response to the poll signal sent by the controller in the received attachment in instance where the received attachment has a controller); and
in response to not receiving the identification signal in response to the poll signal, enter a passive attachment detection mode (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 is configured to passively detect a received attachment by sensing voltage at each of the contact points of attachment identifier 140 to identify the attachment in instances where the received attachment does not include a controller to actively send an identification signal to controller 40 in response to a sent poll signal), wherein, when in the passive attachment detection mode, the first processor:
configures the plurality of ports to sense a voltage at each of the plurality of ports to identify the received food processing attachment (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 is configured to identify the received attachment by sensing voltage at each of the contact points of attachment identifier 140);
determines a voltage level on the one or more ports of the plurality of ports (¶[0038] discloses controller 40 determines the voltage level electrical characteristic through its interface with the contact points of attachment identifier 140);
identifies the received food processing attachment based on one or more voltage values stored in a data storage (¶[0040] discloses controller 40 identifies the received attachment based on the voltage values stored in memory 44 and the voltage values received at the contact points of attachment identifier 140); and
configures the motor based on settings associated with the received food processing attachment (¶[0040] and [0041] disclose controller 40 operates motor 145 based on the identification setting associated with the received attachment).
Staun is silent regarding details how the attachments are identified. Paragraph [0038] only discloses an electrical characteristic, such as voltage, may be used to identify the attachment. Therefore, Staun does not disclose the processor is configured to identify the attachment based on voltage values in a table stored in the data storage as claim 1 has been amended to claim.
In the same field of food processing devices, Atinaja teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reference tables stored in data storage to control attachments attached to a base housing. See paragraphs [0028] through [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify an attachment attached to Staun’s handheld appliance using voltage values in a table stored in the data storage of Staun’s memory in the same way Atinaja teaches using a reference table to identify the speed of the attached attachment. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Atinaja to Staun’s device would achieve the predictable result of Staun’s device using a voltage value table stored in the device’s memory to identify the attachment based upon voltage.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the first processor is configured to periodically transmit the poll signal via the electrical connector to the received food processing attachment from a second port of the plurality of ports (¶[0038] and [0039] disclose processor 42 of controller 40 interfaced with the contact points of attachment identifier 140 sends a poll signal via second contact point 144 in Fig. 4A when electrical connection is established by common contact point 142).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the base housing is configured to provide a power signal to the food processing attachment via the electrical connector (¶[0041] discloses the housing may control and power electromechanical components of a received attachment which requires the base housing being configured to provide a power signal to the received attachment).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the base housing is configured to provide a ground connection to the food processing attachment via the electrical connector (common contact point 142 provides ground for all attachments attached to attachment identifier 140; ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the identification signal includes an identity of a type of food processing attachment (¶[0038] and [0039] disclose identification of the type of attachment is made).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein a type of food processing attachment includes one of a blender, chopper, mixer, immersion blender, frother, vacuum sealer, pasta roller, grinder, food processor, and direct prepper (¶[0033] discloses the attachment may be a mixer or a chopper).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the identification signal is received via asynchronous serial communications (¶[0039] discloses the attachment asynchronously communicates its attachment type to the housing processor in response to the poll signal sent by the housing processor).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the first processor is configured to receive a motor control signal at the first port via the electrical connector from the second processor (¶[0041] discloses the housing may control and power a motor of a received attachment through the attachment identifier 140).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the food processing device of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the first processor is configured to transmit motor status data to the second processor via the electrical connector from a second port of the plurality of ports (¶[0041] discloses a received attachment may have a controller which controls motor 145 of housing 105 in Fig. 1 requiring motor status data to be transmitted through attachment identifier 140 to the processor of the controller in the attachment).
Regarding claim 20, Staun discloses a method for identifying a food processing attachment comprising:
connecting the food processing attachment to a base housing of a food processing device via an attachment receiver including an electrical connector having a plurality of electrical contacts (Fig. 1 shows food processing attachment 205 attached to base housing 105 of appliance 100 via a mechanical attachment therebetween which includes electrical connector attachment identifier 140 in Fig. 4A);
electrically connecting one or more ports of a first processor in the base housing with one or more electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts respectively (processor 42 of controller 40 in Fig. 8 is interfaced with the plurality of contact points of attachment identifier 140 in Fig. 4A);
periodically transmitting a poll signal via the electrical connector to the received food processing attachment (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 may be configured to periodically transmit a poll signal to a received attachment for its type by wired message through attachment identifier 140);
in response to receiving, by the first processor, an identification signal in response to the poll signal at a first port of the plurality of ports via the electrical connector from a second processor in the received food processing attachment, identifying the received food processing attachment (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 identifies a received attachment in response to the identification signal received in response to the poll signal sent by the controller in the received attachment in instance where the received attachment has a controller); and
in response to not receiving, by the first processor, the identification signal in response to the poll signal, entering a passive attachment detection mode (¶[0037] through [0041] disclose controller 40 passively detects a received attachment by sensing voltage at each of the contact points of attachment identifier 140 to identify the attachment in instances where the received attachment does not include a controller to actively send an identification signal to controller 40 in response to a sent poll signal);
wherein, based on entering the passive attachment detection mode:
configuring, by the first processor, the plurality of ports to sense a voltage at each of the plurality of ports to identify the received food processing attachment (controller 40 senses voltage at each of the contact points of attachment identifier 140 to identify the received attachment);
determining, by the first processor, a voltage level on one or more ports of the plurality of the ports (¶[0038] discloses controller 40 determines the voltage level electrical characteristic through its interface with the contact points of attachment identifier 140);
identifying, by the first processor, the received food processing attachment based on one or more voltage values stored in a data storage and the voltage level on the one or more ports (¶[0040] discloses controller 40 identifies the received attachment based on the voltage values stored in memory 44 and the voltage values received at the contact points of attachment identifier 140); and
configuring, by the first processor, a motor to operate based on setting associated with the received food processing attachment (¶[0040] and [0041] disclose controller 40 operates motor 145 based on the identification setting associated with the received attachment).
Staun is silent regarding details how the attachments are identified. Paragraph [0038] only discloses an electrical characteristic, such as voltage, may be used to identify the attachment. Therefore, Staun does not disclose the processor is configured to identify the attachment based on voltage values in a table stored in the data storage as claim 20 has been amended to claim.
In the same field of food processing devices, Atinaja teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reference tables stored in data storage to control attachments attached to a base housing. See paragraphs [0028] through [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify an attachment attached to Staun’s handheld appliance using voltage values in a table stored in the data storage of Staun’s memory in the same way Atinaja teaches using a reference table to identify the speed of the attached attachment. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Atinaja to Staun’s device would achieve the predictable result of Staun’s device using a voltage value table stored in the device’s memory to identify the attachment based upon voltage.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein periodically transmitting the poll signal via the electrical connector to the received food processing attachment comprises periodically transmitting via the electrical connector to the received food processing attachment from a second port of the plurality of ports (¶[0038] and [0039] disclose processor 42 of controller 40 interfaced with the contact points of attachment identifier 140 sends a poll signal via second contact point 144 in Fig. 4A when electrical connection is established by common contact point 142).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses comprising providing a power signal to the food processing attachment via the electrical connector (¶[0041] discloses the housing may control and power electromechanical components of a received attachment which requires the base housing being configured to provide a power signal to the attachment).
Regarding claim 23, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 22 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses comprising providing a ground connection to the food processing attachment via the electrical connector (common contact point 142 provides ground for all attachments attached to attachment identifier 140; ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 24, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the identification signal includes an identity of a type of food processing attachment (¶[0038] and [0039] disclose identification of the type of attachment is made).
Regarding claim 25, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein a type of food processing attachment includes one of a blender, chopper, mixer, immersion blender, frother, vacuum sealer, pasta roller, grinder, food processor, and direct prepper (¶[0033] discloses the attachment may be a mixer or a chopper).
Regarding claim 26, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses wherein the identification signal is received via asynchronous serial communications (¶[0039] discloses the attachment asynchronously communicates its attachment type to the housing processor in response to the poll signal sent by the housing processor).
Regarding claim 27, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses comprising receiving, by the first processor, a motor control signal at the first port via the electrical connector from the second processor (¶[0041] discloses the housing may control and power a motor of a received attachment through the attachment identifier 140).
Regarding claim 28, the prior art reference combination of Staun in view of Atinaja renders the method of claim 20 unpatentable as explained above. Staun further discloses comprising transmitting, by the first processor, motor status data to the second processor via the electrical connector from a second port of the plurality of ports (¶[0041] discloses a received attachment may have a controller which controls motor 145 of housing 105 in Fig. 1 requiring motor status data to be transmitted through attachment identifier 140 to the processor of the controller in the attachment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 30 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Staun appears to be the closest prior art regarding the claimed subject matter of claims 29 and 30. Staun does not disclose configuring the one or more ports of the first processor in the base housing as serial communication ports. Consideration was given to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0069157 A1 by Wulf et al. which discloses disabling some food processing routines when an attachment is connected to the base as shown in Fig. 38. However, specifically disabling the motor does not appear to be taught.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 30 September 2026
Prosecution Insights