Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,067

Handheld mixer

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 15, 2024
Examiner
ACHEN ZIMMERMAN, CHRISTINE M
Art Unit
2922
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Shenzhen Pinvos Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
26 granted / 26 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
30
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
73.8%
+33.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Acknowledgement of Restriction Election Acknowledgement is here made of applicant’s election of Group I, Embodiment 1 (Reproductions 1.1-1.7) in response to the requirement for restriction of September 4, 2025. Group II, Embodiment 2 (Reproductions 2.1-2.7) has been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner (37 CFR 1.142(b)), as being for a nonelected design. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 4, 2025. Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112(a)&(b) The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a)&(b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for: The photographic renderings are not sufficient quality, where all details can be reproducible in a patent. Specifically, there is an overall low resolution, wherein the edges of the design appear jagged and blurry. Additionally, there is an issue with the range of tone. Specifically in Reproductions 1.4 and 1.5, there is an overall washed-out tone that makes it hard to see the details of the claimed design. Reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2902.02, Hague Rule 9. The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized" As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C 112(a} or pre-AJA 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application. Corrected reproductions of a higher resolution line quality are required in response to the office action. See arrows in annotated reproductions below for examples of parts in question. PNG media_image1.png 862 726 media_image1.png Greyscale Because of the insufficient information in the reproductions provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. Inconsistency that cannot be either corrected or satisfactorily explained should be amended to form no part of the claim with lightweight broken lines. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. If applicant chooses to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Replacement Reproductions Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as "amended." If a 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or the remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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. When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design. Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). The references cited but not applied are considered the most pertinent art related to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://w\vw.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the "Patent Number Search" button. Reply Guidelines Signature required Applicant is reminded that any reply to this action must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Responding to official USPTO Correspondence The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only). See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web- guidance-and-resources By mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450; By facsimile via the USPTO official fax number (571-273-8300); or By hand-carry to the USPTO Alexandria, Virginia, Customer Service Window. For more information, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office- actions. Email communications Replies to Office actions may not be submitted via email. The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. See MPEP 502.03.II for further information. Discussions regarding the merits of an application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does not entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Telephonic or in-person interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september- 16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. A registered practitioner "not of record" must show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405 for further information. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be contacted directly via email to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. When proposing an interview appointment, include proposed days and times for the proposed call, and confirm who will initiate the call. For the examiner’s work schedule, see Examiner Contact Information. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE M ACHEN ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1995. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 TO 5. 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, George Ulsh can be reached at 571-270-1433. 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. /C.M.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2922 /CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1111648
Electric grinder
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent D1104618
JOG DIAL FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104621
INDICATOR LIGHT FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104667
RECYCLED CHOPSTICK SERVING BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104608
WARMING PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 26 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month