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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 June 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of GB2011869.1 required by 37 CFR 1.55. The document supports all of the claims in a manner required by U.S.C. 112(a). All claims are accorded the priority date of 30 July 2020.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Luxembourg on 30 July 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Luxembourg application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. This does not affect the priority date of the claims as both priority documents have the same date, and the British application supports all of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 38, 40, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 38 at line 1, “A food processing appliance” should be corrected to --The food processing appliance--.
In claim 38 at line 4, “the exterior surface of the appliance” should be corrected to --the exterior surface-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 40 at line 1 of p.5, “appliance”, if this wording is retained, should be corrected to --food processing appliance--.
In claim 41 at line 6, “appliance” should be corrected to --food processing appliance--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f). In particular, claim 31 limitation “locating element” has sufficient structure in the claim in the form of “at least one finger.”
Claim 42 at line 4 recites “a surface of the housing.” This interpreted to not necessarily be the same surface as the exterior surface of the motor housing recited in claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 32-33, 37-42, and 44 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 32 recites “a drive outlet.” Claim 32 depends from claim 26, which recites a drive outlet. It is not clear whether claim 32 refers to the same drive outlet or whether it requires an additional drive outlet.
Claim 33 recites “the body includes a retainer by which the fascia is reversibly attachable.” Claim 33 depends from claim 26, which recites “a retainer by which the fascia is reversibly attachable.” It is not clear how the retainer of claim 33 relates to the retainer of claim 26.
Claim 37 at line 2 recites “a plurality of fascias.” It is not clear how these fascias are related to the previously recited fascia of claim 26, i.e. whether they have the same limitations.
Claim 38 recites “a retainer of the fascia.” Claim 38 depends from claim 26, which recites “a retainer by which the fascia is reversibly attachable.” It is not clear how the retainer of claim 38 relates to the retainer of claim 26.
Claim 40 at line 2 recites “a fascia.” Claim 40 depends from claim 26, which recites “a fascia.” It is not clear whether claim 40 requires a new fascia, or whether it is the same fascia.
Claim 40 at line 3 recites “a plurality of fascias.” It is not clear how these fascias are related to the previously recited fascia of claim 26, i.e. whether they have the same limitations.
Claim 40 at line 6 recites “a housing.” Claim 40 depends from claim 26, which recites “a housing for a motor.” It is not clear whether claim 40 requires a new housing, or whether it is the same housing.
Claim 42 depends from claim 40 and also recites “the housing.” Claim 42 is rejected for its dependence of claim 40, and may require correction depending on how claim 40 is corrected.
Claim 40 recites “a housing defining an exterior surface of the appliance.” Claim 40 depends from claim 26, which recites “the housing defining an exterior surface of the food processing appliance.” It is not clear how the surface of claim 40 relates to the surface of claim 26. Are they the same surface? Does the surface of claim 40 include the surface of claim 26? Are they different surfaces?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27, 29-31, 34-36 are allowed.
Claims 32-33, 37-42 and 44 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b), but otherwise allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest “A food processing appliance having a housing for a motor…the body of the fascia includes an aperture, 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: and the body of the fascia includes a retainer by which the fascia is reversibly attachable, the retainer comprising a resiliently deformable tab and being located adjacent the aperture” in conjunction with the other limitations of claim 26. The nearest prior art was applied in the Final Rejection mailed 04/17/2026.
Conclusion
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