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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 Stationary ring must be shown or the feature 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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are: In Claims 1 -2, 7, 10, and 18-19 : “ reversible attachment means ” In Claims 1 2 : “ rotation stop means ” Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Reference is made to the Specification filed on 01/23/2023 for what each claim limitations are being interpreted as: Interpretations: R eversible attachment means is being interpreted as “ - a rotary coupling (the bore of the rotary shaft 21) that receives the mobile work tool 31, and - a stationary coupling (the upper bore of the stationary mounting 23 formed by the skirt or the turnback of the stationary mounting 23) that can receive the plug 32. ” (Paragraph 5 5 ). R otation stop means is being interpreted as “ a recess, a notch, a counter form, arranged to provide rotational blocking of the stationary ring on the work bowl. An asymmetrical or non-circular through-hole, or with a tab, or rotation stop notch may be provided. ” (Paragraph 25 ). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 -2, 7, 10, 12, and 18-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claims 2, 6-13 , and 22-23 , In the present instance the claims recite “ stationary mounting" and "stationary coupling " . The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the stationary mounting and stationary coupling is one singular components or a collection of components working together as the Specification describe the stationary coupling as a part of the stationary mounting in the form of a bore formed by a skirt or a turnback . However, t he claims suggest that the stationary mounting and stationary coupling are separate component s , as Claim 2 recites that the stationary coupling is integral with the work bowl . Claim 12 recites the limitation “ the stationary ring “ . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim s 1-8, 11, 17 ,and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunt ( WO Patent No. 2017144907 ). Regrading Claim 1 , Hunt teaches a work bowl assembly for a culinary preparation appliance ( Abstract, Bowl Assembly for Kitchen Appliance ) , comprising: a work bowl, arranged to receive food to be prepared ( Abstract, Bowl Assembly arr an ged to process food ) , a through-hole, disposed at a bottom of the work bowl ( Figure 3, Bowl Assembly 110 has a hole at the bottom labeled aperture 115 ) , a bowl bearing, attached to the work bowl in the through-hole ( Figure 4b, Bearings 209 attached to bowl assembly 110 through the through hole ) , a rotary shaft, supported by the bowl bearing ( Figure 4b and Page 13 Line 13-21, Shaft 220 is supported by bearings 209 ) , wherein the work bowl assembly comprises reversible attachment means configured to reversibly receive: a mobile work tool configured to couple with the rotary shaft to occupy a working position, or a blanking plug configured to cover the rotary shaft ( Figure 3, Bowl Assembly 110 has drivable too mount 200. Figure 4a-b, A tool 230 is fitted on shaft 220 to occupy a working position ) Regrading Claim 2 , Hunt teaches that a reversible attachment means comprises: -a rotary coupling, integral with the rotary shaft and configured to reversibly couple with the mobile work tool ( Page 13 Line 13-24, the drivable tool mount 200 is provided with a faceted section 222 being arranged to cooperate with a corresponding faceted section 236 provided on the inside of the central section 234 to allow the processing tool 230 to fit onto the shaft 220 using a twist fit or a snap fit. ) , a stationary coupling, integral with the work bowl and configured to reversibly couple with the blanking plug ( Figure 6-7, Lock 150 reads as a stationary mounting has collar 152 which engages with the work bowl and couples with the blanking plug 300 ) . Regrading Claim 3 , Hunt teaches that the rotary coupling is formed by a rotary bore disposed in the rotary shaft ( Page 13 Line 13-24, the processing tool 230 fits onto the shaft 220 using a twist fit or a snap fit using faceted section 222 on the shaft which reads as a bore ) . Regrading Claim 4 , Hunt teaches wherein at least one of the rotary shaft and the mobile work tool comprises an elastic member emerging into the rotary bore ( Page 13 Line 13-24 and Figure 4b, the processing tool 230 fits onto the shaft 220 using a snap fit using faceted section 222 on the shaft and a faceted section 236 on the processing tool 230 which reads as faceted section 236 being elastic to create a snap fit joint ) configured to hold the mobile work tool in a coupling position with the rotary shaft ( Page 13 Line 13-24 and Figure 4b, the faceted section 222 on the shaft and a faceted section 236 on the processing tool 230 holds the processing tool 230 to the shaft 220 ) . Regrading Claim 5 , Hunt teaches that at least the other of the rotary shaft and the mobile work tool has a relief arranged opposite the elastic member when the mobile work tool is coupled in the working position with the rotary shaft ( Page 13 Line 13-24 and Figure 4b, the faceted section 222 on the shaft and a faceted section 236 on the processing tool 230 acting as a relief holds the processing tool 230 to the shaft 220 ) . Regrading Claim 6 , Hunt teaches a stationary mounting configured to reversibly couple the work bowl, wherein the stationary mounting supports the bowl bearing ( Figure 6-7, Lock 150 reads as a stationary mounting engages with the work bowl and the drivable tool mount 200 which contains the bearings ) . Regrading Claim 7 , Hunt teaches that the reversible attachment means comprises: a rotary coupling, integral with the rotary shaft and configured to reversibly couple with the mobile work tool ( Page 13 Line 13-24, he drivable tool mount 200 is provided with a faceted section 222 being arranged to cooperate with a corresponding faceted section 236 provided on the inside of the central section 234 to allow the processing tool 230 to fit onto the shaft 220 using a twist fit or a snap fit ) , and a stationary coupling, integral with the work bowl and configured to reversibly couple with the blanking plug, and wherein the stationary mounting comprises the stationary coupling ( Figure 6-7, Lock 150 reads as a stationary mounting has collar 152 which engages with the work bowl and couples with the blanking plug 300 ) . Regrading Claim 8 , Hunt teaches a lock, configured to reversibly engage with-the stationary mounting ( Figure 4b, 6a-c and Page 18 Line 9-26, Bayonet, reads as lock fitting engages with Lock arrangement 150 which reads as stationary mounting ) . Regrading Claim 1 1 , Hunt teaches a stationary mounting seal, disposed between the work bowl and the stationary mounting ( Page 12 Line 15-27 and Figure 4b, Locking 150 has seal 140 between it and the Work bowl ) . Regrading Claim 1 7 , Hunt teaches a drive nut coupled to the rotary shaft ( Figure 4b, Gear 210 coupled to Shaft 220 ) . Regrading Claim 20 , Hunt teaches a blanking plug, -the mobile work tool ( Figure 5b, he blanking plug 300. Figure 4b, Processing tool 230 ) . 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. Claim s 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt ( WO Patent No. 2017144907 ) in view of Kim ( US Patent No. 20220225839 ). Regrading Claim 9 , Hunt teaches that the bottom of the work bowl has a recess around the through-hole to receive the flange ( Figure 4b and Page 18 Line 20-26, indented section 116 is ca pab le of accommodating a flange and surrounds a through hole labeled aperture 115 ) . Hunt fails to teach that the stationary mounting has a flange with an upper face arranged in the work bowl. Kim teaches a blender (Abstract, Blender) where the stationary mounting has a flange with an upper face arranged in the work bowl ( Figure 6, Shaft mounting body has flange with an upper face inside jar 10 ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate a stationary mounting with a flange as stated in Kim. The Shaft mounting body contains bearings that provide stability to rotation ( Paragraph 119, The Shaft mounting body ) . Regrading Claim 22 , Hunt teaches that the bottom of the work bowl has a recess around the through-hole to receive the flange with a recess depth provided to position the upper face of the flange of the stationary mounting at the level of the rest of the bottom of the work bowl ( Figure 4b, 5b and Page 18 Line 20-26, indented section 116 is ca pa b l e of accommodating a flange 206/306 and surrounds a through hole labeled aperture 115 while the flange is flush with the bottom of the bowl ) . Hunt fails to teach that the stationary mounting has a flange with an upper face arranged in the work bowl. Kim teaches a blender (Abstract, Blender) where the stationary mounting has a flange with an upper face arranged in the work bowl ( Figure 6, Shaft mounting body has flange with an upper face inside jar 10 ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate a stationary mounting with a flange as stated in Kim. The Shaft mounting body contains bearings that provide stability to rotation ( Paragraph 119, The Shaft mounting body ) . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt ( WO Patent No. 2017144907 ) in view of Rosenzweig (US Patent No. 9149156 ). Regrading Claim 14 , Hunt fails to teach that the bowl bearing comprises a plain bearing and/or at least one ball bearing. Rosenzweig teaches a f ood processing assembl y (Abstract, Food processing assembl y) where the bowl bearing comprises a plain bearing and/or at least one ball bearing ( Col 5 Line 28-43, Ball bearing 230 used to move shaft ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Hunt’s bearings with Rosenzweig ’s ball bearings (MPEP 2141.06) . Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt ( WO Patent No. 2017144907 ) in view of Jong- bu ( KR Patent No. 102325064 ). Regrading Claim 15 , Hunt fails to teach that the rotary shaft has a through-hole. Jong- bu teaches a f ood processing machine (Abstract, Food processing machine ) where the rotary shaft has a through-hole. ( Figure 5 Rotation shaft has a through hole ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Hunt’s rotating shaft with Jong- bu ’s rotating shaft (MPEP 2141.06) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4235 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761