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
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12 January 2026. Presently, claims 26-42 and 44-45 are pending.
The previous objections to the specification, drawings, and/or claims are withdrawn as moot in light of corrections made by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed 12 January 2026, Applicant argues, with regard to a 102 rejection of claim 26 in ¶28 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed27 October 2025, “the body 358 of Guilder does not extend over a portion of the exterior surface of the appliance, being shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface.” This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 26 is directed to the fascia only, exclusive of the appliance. Thus, the matter of whether “the body is shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface” depends rather on the appliance, which is not claimed.
The specification does not include any special definition of “correspond.” In fact, Fig 2 shows support tabs 232 in the fascia, with no corresponding recesses in the appliance. Thus, one informed by the disclosure would understand some gaps or deviation between the shape of the fascia and the appliance to be within the metes and bounds of the claim. The gentle curve of removable insert 358 does generally correspond to the shape of cover 260. Further, the overall shape outline (top view) of insert 358 corresponds to the outline shape of the recessed portion of cover 260 that receives it. Further still, the shape of insert 35 exactly matches and lies in abutment directly against cover 260 along the side faces and the bottom edge of the insert. The arrows in annotated Figs 4 and 5 below point out some of these portions. Thus, even when the appliance is claimed in claim 38, Guilder still meets the limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the rejections over Riley, Applicant argues, the panel (100 in Fig 9A, which is similar to 40 in Fig 1, but applied to the device of Figs 8A-8C, so essentially panel 460 in Fig 8A-8C) “is not shaped to correspond to the shape of an exterior surface of the appliance housing” due to the “flanged edges” and/or due to the presence of a coloured member between the panel and the appliance. This argument is not persuasive. First, Riley discloses that the panel “conforms” to the shape/curvature of the appliance (¶35, ¶55). Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that “the body is shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface.” Second, the colored portion is not required – the panel itself may have the decorative finish (¶56).
Regarding Seghers, Applicant states “the cover 5 is simply part of a lid. It is not a fascia covering at least a portion of an exterior surface of the appliance housing, and is not shaped to correspond to the shape of such a surface.” This conclusory statement is not persuasive. As to claims 26-36, the appliance is not claimed, and thus the claims do not require the “fascia covering at least a portion of an exterior surface of the appliance housing.” As to being configured “so as to extend over and cover at least a portion of the exterior surface,” that depends on the appliance. The lid of Seghers is configured to extend over and cover the top surface, i.e., the rim of a percolator pot having a circular opening.
Regarding Short, the Applicant argues that “the removable head cover 40 of Short does not extend over a housing of the appliance, and is not shaped to correspond to an exterior surface of the appliance housing.” This argument is not persuasive. The head cover of Short does correspond to the shape of the protruding edge along peripheral edge 49 of the cover and along the line where the head cover is sealed against the body. Nonetheless, Short no longer meets the limitations of amended claim 38 because Short does not disclose “the receiving formation is a recessed aperture, and/or wherein the receiving formation is configured to receive a formation for limiting movement of the fascia, wherein the receiving formation is a recessed, annular channel.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the portion of the exterior surface is…concave” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim terminology should be consistent throughout the claims. Thus, in claims 28 and 29, “the body of the fascia” should be corrected to –the body--, or else all other recitations of “the body” in claims 26 and 33 should be corrected to –the body of the fascia--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendments have left some errant commas throughout the claims. The Applicant is encouraged to review the placement of commas throughout the claims. The Applicant is reminded that deleting five or fewer consecutive characters should be done by double brackets, see MPEP §714.
Claim Interpretation
“Locating element” in claims 31-33 is interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 was amended to read “the portion of the exterior surface is at least one of concave and saddle shaped.” As described in the specification on p.13 ¶1, the head 110 is saddle shaped. However, the fascia was described as concave to correspond to the convex, saddle shaped portion of the head. It appears from the drawings that all portions exterior surface of the head covered by the fascia are convex. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitation to read -- the portion of the exterior surface is at least one of convex and saddle shaped--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites “a drive outlet,” a “high-speed drive outlet,” and a “low-speed drive outlet.” It is not clear whether this requires 3 drive outlets or only two. It is not clear how, if at all, the high and low speed drive outlets relate to the drive outlet.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “a stand mixer.” Claim 42 depends from claim 38, which recites “A food processing appliance.” It is not clear how the stand mixer of claim 42 relates to the appliance of claim 38.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-29, 31, 33, 34, 38-40, 42, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guilder (US 2,662,421).
PNG
media_image2.png
804
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Guilder (US 2,662,421) discloses:
A fascia (removable insert 358, see Fig 4, col 5 lines 58-72) for a food processing appliance (food mixer, see Fig 1 and title) comprising a body (body of 358 in Fig 4), wherein the body is configured to be reversibly attachable (as described in col 5 lines 58-72, it is “removable” and attached by a bolt and interlocking projections, which are reversibly attachable) to a housing defining an exterior surface of the food processing appliance so as to extend over and cover at least a portion of the exterior surface (recessed portion of 260), wherein the body is shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface (the outline of 358 as viewed from the top matches the shape of the recessed portion of 260 covered by 358. Further, the curvature of the top surface of 358 matches the curvature of the recessed portion of 260. Further, 358 is in direct and continuous abutment with 260 along its edge bottom and side surfaces.).
Regarding claim 27, Guilder discloses:
wherein the portion of the exterior is … [alternative limitation] saddle-shaped (see gentle arc from front/left to back/right in Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 28, Guilder discloses:
the body of the fascia includes an aperture (366), wherein the aperture is configured to align with a drive outlet of the food processing appliance and is configured to receive a tool attachment therethrough (col 5 lines 67-72).
Regarding claim 29, Guilder discloses:
the body of the fascia includes a retainer (362, col 5 lines 63-67) by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, the retainer being a mechanical and/or non-magnetic retainer, wherein the retainer (362) is located adjacent the aperture (366).
Regarding claim 31, Guilder discloses:
a locating element (360) for locating the fascia on the food processing appliance, wherein the locating element includes at least one finger (overall structure of 360 is a tab or finger) for attaching the fascia to the food processing appliance.
Regarding claim 33, Guilder discloses:
the body includes a retainer (362, col 5 lines 63-67) by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, and wherein the locating element (360) is located at a first end of the body (right in Fig 4) and the retainer (362) is located adjacent a second end of the body (left in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 34, Guilder discloses:
a formation (left and right edges and edge adjacent 360) for limiting movement of the fascia.
Regarding claim 38, Guilder discloses:
A food processing appliance (mixer, see Fig 1) having an exterior surface (recessed portion of 260) configured to receive a reversibly attachable fascia (removable insert 358, see Fig 4, col 5 lines 58-72) extending over at least a portion of the exterior surface (insert 350 covers the recessed portion of 260), the fascia being shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface (the outline of 358 as viewed from the top matches the shape of the recessed portion of 260 covered by 358. Further, the curvature of the top surface of 358 matches the curvature of the recessed portion of 260. Further, 358 is in direct and continuous abutment with 260 along its edge bottom and side surfaces.), the exterior surface comprising a receiving formation for receiving a retainer of the fascia (350 for receiving tabs 360 or hole between holes 354 for receiving fastener through hole 362), wherein the receiving formation is a recessed aperture (350 is an aperture in a recess, and thus a recessed aperture), and/or …[alternative limitations] …,
Regarding claim 39, Guilder discloses:
at least one hole (there are two holes 350, so one is the receiving formation of claim 38, and one is the hole of claim 39) configured to receive at least one finger (360) for attaching the fascia to the food processing appliance.
Regarding claim 40, Guilder discloses:
incorporating a fascia (358) having a body configured to be reversibly attachable to the food processing appliance (a threaded fastener and tab are reversible attachments), or …[alternative limitations]
Regarding claim 42, Guilder discloses:
the fascia fixingly locates on a stand mixer at least three points (two tabs 360, edges against edges of recess 346, fastener at 362), and/or…
Regarding claim 44, Guilder discloses:
a stand mixer wherein the fascia (358) extends over, and is preferably attached to, a head component, of the stand mixer (see Fig 1) that is pivotable (col 3 lines 12-28) relative to a pedestal component (104) thereof.
Regarding claim 45, Guilder discloses:
A food processor (mixer) having a removable fascia (358) according to claim 26.
Claims 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley (US 2008/0203870).
PNG
media_image3.png
1023
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Riley discloses:
A fascia (100, see Fig 9A, ¶47 is similar to 40 in Fig 1, shown as 60 in Figs 9A-9Csee ¶46) for a food processing appliance (coffee grinder, see Figs 1 and 9A-9C) and comprising a body (of 460, see Fig 8C), wherein the body is configured to be reversibly attachable (¶48) to a housing defining an exterior surface of the food processing appliance so as to extend over and cover at least a portion of the exterior surface, wherein the body is shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface (the panel “conforms” to the shape/curvature of the appliance according to ¶35, ¶55. See also ¶56, no gap is required to accommodate the colored portion because the panel 460 itself may have the decorative finish).
Regarding claim 27, Riley discloses:
the portion of the exterior surface is …[alternative limitations] saddle-shaped (see Fig 1, Fig A, Fig 4E, 9C).
Regarding claim 31, Riley discloses:
a locating element (flanged ends 470, 472 in Fig 8B or 108 in Figs 9A-9C) for locating the fascia on the food processing appliance, wherein the locating element includes at least one finger (480, ¶55 or 120, 122, ¶47) for attaching the fascia to the food processing appliance.
Regarding claim 33, Riley discloses:
the body includes a retainer (¶47 “resilient members 120 and 122”) by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, and wherein the locating element (flanged ends 106, 107 at left and right) is located at a first end of the body and the retainer is located adjacent a second end of the body (resilient member 120 and 122 at bottom end).
Regarding claim 34, Riley discloses:
a formation (120, 122, 106, 107) for limiting movement of the fascia.
Regarding claim 37, Riley discloses:
A kit of parts comprising a plurality of fascias each according to claim 26, wherein each such fascia has a different decorative finish (¶8, ¶43, ¶56).
Regarding claim 45, Riley discloses:
A food processor (coffee maker/grinder, see Figs 1 and 9A-9C) having a removable fascia (100, see Fig 9A, ¶47 is similar to 40 in Fig 1, see ¶46), according to claim 26.
Claims 26 and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seghers (US 2,002,354).
PNG
media_image4.png
199
507
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Seghers discloses:
A fascia (cover 5f, see Fig 9) for a food processing appliance (percolator in the disclosure, but 5f could be attached to a variety of appliances having a round portion) comprising a body (5f), wherein the body is configured to be reversibly attachable to a housing defining an exterior surface of the food processing appliance (attached to the percolator at the lid 7 by spring fingers 38) so as to extend over and cover at least a portion of the exterior surface (of the lid 7), wherein the body is shaped to correspond to the shape of the portion of the exterior surface (the spring fingers form a round body corresponding tot h round shape of the lid).
Regarding claim 28, Seghers discloses:
the body includes an aperture (inner circle in Fig 10), wherein the aperture is configured to align with a drive outlet of the food processing appliance and is configured to receive a tool attachment therethrough (the body has an aperture, see inner circle 6 in Fig 10, which is capable of aligning with a drive outlet. Since the appliance itself is not claimed, the features of the appliance do not patentably distinguish the claims).
Regarding claim 29, Seghers discloses:
the body of the fascia includes a retainer (spring fingers 38) by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, the retainer being a mechanical and/or non-magnetic retainer, wherein the retainer is located adjacent the aperture (fingers 38 surround the aperture).
Regarding claim 30, Seghers discloses:
the retainer comprises a resiliently deformable tab (p.4, col 2, line 28 “spring fingers 38”), wherein the retainer further comprises a protrusion extending from the resiliently deformable tab (narrower portion protruding downward in Fig 8) for engaging with a corresponding formation (9e) on the food processing appliance.
Regarding claim 31, Seghers discloses:
a locating element (a different one or more of the spring fingers 38) for locating the fascia on the food processing appliance, wherein the locating element includes at least one finger (thinner bottom portion of 38, see Fig 8) for attaching the fascia to the food processing appliance.
Regarding claim 32, Seghers discloses:
the locating element (one or more spring fingers 38) has an arcuate shape (circle, see Fig 10) for accommodating a drive outlet of the food processing appliance (this would depend on the appliance, which is not claimed).
Regarding claim 33, Seghers discloses:
the body includes a retainer (tabs 38) by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, and wherein the locating element (other tabs 38) is located at a first end of the body (left side) and the retainer (tabs 38) is located adjacent a second end of the body (right side).
Regarding claim 34, Seghers discloses:
a formation for limiting movement of the fascia (additional tabs or the rim around the outer edge of 5f or the step near the rim).
Regarding claim 35, Seghers discloses:
a collar (vertical portion of 5f as shown in Fig 8) substantially surrounding the aperture.
Regarding claim 36, Seghers discloses:
a collar (vertical portion of 5f as shown in Fig 8) substantially surrounding the aperture, and wherein the resiliently deformable tab (38) is formed integrally with the collar along at least a portion of the length of the resiliently deformable tab, the portion being one of between 5% and 75% of its length (the side view shows 8 or 9 tabs, so the whole circle has 18-20 tabs, making each about 5% or more of the circumference), and [alternative limitations]…
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 41, Guilder discloses:
the fascia comprises an aperture (366) corresponding to a drive outlet of the food processing appliance (col 5 lines 67-72), preferably …, more preferably wherein the aperture is configured to receive an attachment tool attachable to the drive outlet of the food processing appliance (col 5 lines 67-72), and optionally ….
Guilder does not disclose:
the appliance has both a first, high-speed, drive outlet and a second, low- speed, drive outlet, and the fascia is shaped so as to accommodate both the high speed and low speed outlets.
To accommodate the drive outlet is interpreted to mean that the fascia at least partly borders on the drive outlet.
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 TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights