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. Inventorship This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT “A clamping plate 19” (Pg. 15, Paragraph 3, Line 10) should read “a limiting plate 19”. “A clamping plate 19” (Pg. 15, Paragraph 3, Line 1 1 ) should read “a limiting plate 19”. “A clamping plate 19” (Pg. 15, Paragraph 3, Line 1 2 ) should read “a limiting plate 19”. “A clamping plate 19” (Pg. 15, Paragraph 3, Line 1 3 ) should read “a limiting plate 19”. “A clamping plate 19” (Pg. 15, Paragraph 3, Line 1 5 ) should read “a limiting plate 19”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 2 - 10 and 12-20 objected to because of the following informalities: “a separated handle” located in the preamble/introduction of each claim . It is recommended that “a separated handle” reads as “the separated handle” following the independent claims, 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elastic member” in claims 1 and 13. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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. Claims 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 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. The term “ gradually ” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ gradually ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rat e at which the free end of the hook is received in the accommodation cavity is rendered indefinite . Claim 8 recites the limitation s " protrusions " in line 2 and “limiting grooves” in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "a free end of the hook" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation s “the other end” in line 3 and “the elastic member” in line s 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Claims 15, 15, and 16 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "limiting grooves" in line 2, “side walls” in line 2, and “limiting protrusions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1-1 3, 1 5, and 17 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Prieto et al. (U.S. Patent No 20190290062) , hereinafter Prieto . Prieto teaches: Annotated Figure 1 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 2 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 3 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 4 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 5 (Prieto) Regarding claim 1, (See Annotat ed Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) a frying basket assembly having a separated handle ( Annotated Figure 1 ) , the frying basket assembly comprising a handle (33 and 12 ) and a frying basket (2) , wherein the handle (3 3 and 12 ) comprises a mounting portion (11) , the frying basket (2) is provided thereon with a mounting groove (8) corresponding to the mounting portion (11) , one of the mounting portion (11) and the mounting groove (8) is provided with a hook (19 and 21 ) , the other is provided with a snapping position ( Annotated Figure 3 ) corresponding to the hook (19 and 21 ) , the hook (19 and 21 ) is connected with an elastic member (35) so as to make the hook (19 and 21 ) move towards a direction of the snapping position ( Annotated Figure 3 ) , and when the handle (33 and 12 ) is mounted on the frying basket (2) and reaches a final position ( Annotated Figure 1 ) , the hook (19 and 21 ) is clamped into the snapping position ( Annotated Figure 3 ) , to non-detachably fix the handle (33 and 12 ) on the frying basket (2) . Regarding claim 2, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein the mounting portion (11) has an accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 4 ) , the hook (19 and 21 ) has a connecting end ( Annotated Figure 4 ) and a free end ( Annotated Figure 4 ) , wherein the connecting end ( Annotated Figure 4 ) is hinged in the accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 4 ) , and the free end ( Annotated Figure 4 ) extends out of the accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 4 ) to face the snapping position ( Annotated Figure 4 ) . Regarding claim 3, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein the elastic member (35) is a spring (35) , the spring ( 35) has a first end ( Annotated Figure 3) abutting against an inner wall of the accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 3 ) , and a second end ( Annotated Figure 3 ) abutting against the hook (19 and 21 ) . Regarding claim 4, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein a guiding groove ( Annotated Figure 3 ) is provided in the accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 4 ) , and the first end ( Annotated Figure 3 ) of the spring (35) is limited in the guiding groove ( Annotated Figure 3 ) . Regarding claim 5, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein the mounting groove (8) is provided with a guiding slope (18a) , and when the mounting portion (11) is vertica lly slid, the free end of the hook ( Annotated Figure 4 ) is gradually received in the accommodation cavity ( Annotated Figure 4 ) under extrusion of the guiding slope (18a). Regarding claim 6 , (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein the mounting groove (8) is a U-shaped groove ( Annotated Figure 5 ) , and the mounting portion (11) is inserted from a groove opening ( Annotated Figure 5 ) of the U-shaped groove ( Annotated Figure 5 ) , and slid downwards into the U-shaped groove ( Annotated Figure 5 ) . Regarding claim 7, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein a step surface (13) is provided at the groove opening ( Annotated Figure 5 ) of the U- shaped groove ( Annotated Figure 5 ) , a top end ( Annotated Figure 4 ) of the mounting portion (11) is provided with a blocking portion (12) , and when the handle (33 and 12 ) is mounted on the frying basket (2) and reaches the final position ( Annotated Figure 1 ) , the blocking portion (12) covers the step surface (13) . Regarding claim 8, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein two sides of the mounting portion (11) are provided with protrusions (36 and 37) , the mounting groove (8) is provided with corresponding limiting grooves (38 and 39) , and the protrusions (36 and 37) are limited in the limiting grooves (38 and 39) to prevent the mounting portion (11) from moving out of the mounting groove (8) . Regarding claim 9, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein one of a bottom end of the mounting groove (8) and a bottom end of the mounting portion (11) is provided with a positioning groove (18) , and the other is provided with a corresponding positioning post ( Annotated Figure 4 ) , and when the handle (33 and 12 ) is mounted on the frying basket (2) and reaches the final position ( Annotated Figure 1 ) , the positioning post ( Annotated Figure 4 ) is clamped into the positioning groove (18) . Regarding claim 10, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) wherein a free end of the hook ( Annotated Figure 4 ) has two hook tines ( Annotated Figure 2 ) , and when the handle (33 and 12 ) is mounted on the frying basket (2) and reaches the final position (Annotated Figure 1 ) , the two hook tines (Annotated Figure 2 ) are clamped into the snapping position (Annotated Figure 3 ) . Annotated Figure 6 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 7 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 8 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 9 (Prieto) Annotated Figure 10 (Prieto) Regarding claim 11, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) A frying basket having a separated handle (Annotated Figure 6 ) , comprising a frying basket body (2) and a handle portion (33 and 12 ) , wherein the frying basket body (2) and the handle portion (33 and 12 ) are detachably connected to each other, and the frying basket body (2) has a space inside (Annotated Figure 10 ) capable of accommodating the handle portion (33 and 12 ) , the frying basket body (2) is provided thereon with a mounting port (8) , one end of the handle portion (33 and 12 ) is provided with a mounting base (11) , and the mounting base (11) fits and is embedded into the mounting port (8) . Regarding claim 12, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) wherein the mounting base (11) is provided thereon with a snap- fit structure (Annotated Figure 3 ) for locking with the frying basket body (2) in a snap-fit manner when the mounting base (11) fits and is embedded into the mounting port (8) . Regarding claim 13, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) wherein the snap-fit structure (Annotated Figure 3 ) comprises a hook (1 9 and 21) , the hook (1 9 and 21) has one end (Annotated Figure 9 ) hinged to the mounting base (11) , and the other end being a movable end (Annotated Figure 9 ) , the elastic member (35) is mounted between the movable end (Annotated Figure 9 ) and the mounting base (11) , the mounting port (8) is provided therein with a snapping port (Annotated Figure 8 ) , and the movable end (Annotated Figure 9 ) of the hook (1 9 and 21) extends out under action of the elastic member (35) to be clamped and locked with the snapping port (Annotated Figure 8 ) “A spring 35 ensures that the latch 19 returns to the locking position, with the head 21 arranged under the rear contour 18 a of the opening 18, as illustrated in FIG. 12” (Pg. 4 Paragraph 0039, lines 10-13) . Examiner note: Prie to teaches the elastic member (35) is mounted between the top of the mounting base (11) and the movable end of the hook (Annotated figure 9 ); however, P rie to does not teach the elastic member being mounted directly between the mounting base (11) and the movable end of the hook (Annotated figure 9). Regarding claim 15, (See Annotated figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 above ) wherein the mounting base (11) is provided with a through-hole (Annotated figures 7 ), and a space for inserting and moving an auxiliary tool (Annotated figures 9 ) is provided between the through- hole (Annotated figures 7 ) and the movable end of the hook (Annotated figures 9 ). Regarding claim 17, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7, 8, 9, and 10 above) wherein the mounting port (8) is provided at one side edge (Annotated Figure 10 ) of the frying basket body (2) , and the mounting base (11) of the handle portion (33 and 12 ) is slid into the mounting port (8) from top to bottom or from bottom to top . Regarding claim 18, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) wherein limiting grooves (38 and 39) are provided on side walls at two sides of the mounting port (8) , and limiting protrusions (36 and 37) corresponding to the limiting grooves (38 and 39) are provided at two sides of the mounting base (11) ; or the side walls at the two sides of the mounting port are provided with the limiting protrusions, and the two sides of the mounting base are provided with the limiting grooves corresponding to the limiting protrusions, and when the mounting base (11) is slid into the mounting port (8) , the limiting protrusions (36 and 37) are clamped into the limiting grooves (38 and 39) . Regarding claim 19, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) wherein the frying basket body (2) comprises a pot body (5) and a panel (4) provided at one side of the pot body (5) , the mounting port (8) is provided on the panel (4) , and a space capable of accommodating the handle portion ( Annotated Figure 8) is provided in the pot body (5) . Regarding claim 20, (See Annotated Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) An air fryer, comprising a fryer body and the frying basket assembly having a separated handle according to claim 1, wherein the frying basket assembly enters or exits the fryer body in a push-and-pull manner. “On certain models of hot air fryer cooking appliances, the vessel is removable from the body of the cooking appliance. We will mention, for example, the following models: Philips® HD9220/20 AirFryer ®; Russell Hobbs® 20810-56; Aicok ® AHF001. The vessel is inserted into the body and removed from the latter like a drawer ” (Pg. 1, Paragraph 0005, lines 1-6). 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto in view of Hu et al. (C.N. Patent No. 211324495 ), hereinafter Hu . Prieto teaches: Regarding claim 14, (See Annotated Figures 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 above) wherein a buckling plate (18a) towards the hook (19 and 21) is disposed inside the mounting port (8) , and the snapping port (Annotated Figure 8) is formed between an extending end of the buckling plate ( 18 a) and the frying basket body (2) . Prieto does not teach: Regarding claim 14, wherein a buckling plate inclined towards the hook , an inclined extending end of the buckling plate . H u teaches: Annotated Figure 11 (Hu) Annotated Figure 12 (Hu) Annotated Figure 13 (Hu) Regarding claim 14, (See Annotated Figures 11, 12, and 13 above) wherein a buckling plate (Annotated Figure 12 ) inclined towards the hook (62 and 63) is disposed inside the mounting port (5) , and the snapping port (Annotated Figure 12 ) is formed between an inclined extending end (Annotated Figure 12 ) of the buckling plate and the frying basket body (5). Regarding the inclined extending end of the buckling plate in claim 14 , at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an inclined extending end of the buckling plate instead of a horizontal extending end of the buckling plate , because applicant has not disclosed that the inclined extending end of the buckling plate provides an advantage , is used for particular purpose , or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with a horizontal extending end of the buckling plate or an inclined extending end of the buckling plate , because both perform the function of locking the hook into the snapping port equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto in view of Du et al. (C.N. Patent No. 114052520), hereinafter Du . Prieto teaches: Regarding claim 16, (See Annotated figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 above ) a plug (34) . Prieto does not teach: Regarding claim 16, wherein the through-hole is blocked by a removable plug. Du teaches: Annotated Figure 14 ( D u) Regarding claim 16, (See Annotated F igure 14 ) wherein the through-hole (Annotated F igure 14 ) is blocked by a removable plug (102) . Regarding claim 16, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified P r ie t o to incorporate the teachings of Du to have a removable plug. Doing so allows for easier access and a view inside of the mounting base of the handle portion. Ease of access and a view to the inside of the mounting base of the handle portion allows the user to see if parts are broken or need replacement without having to disassemble the whole handle portion. Alternatively , c laim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prieto in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Patent No. 215383110 ), hereinafter Wang . Prieto teaches: Regarding claim 19, (See Annotated Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 above) wherein the frying basket body (2) comprises a pot body (5) and a panel (4) provided at one side of the pot body (5) , the mounting port (8) is provided on the panel (4). Prieto does not teach: Regarding claim 19, a space capable of accommodating the handle portion is provided in the pot body . Wang teaches: Annotated Figure 1 5 ( Wang ) Annotated Figure 1 6 ( Wang ) Regarding claim 19, (See Annotated Figures 15 and 16 above) a space (Annotated Figure 16) capable of accommodating the handle portion (3) is provided in the pot body (1). Regarding claim 19, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prieto to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have a space capable of accommodating the handle potion provided in the pot body. Doing so allows “the lid to be folded into the storage position to reduce its size, making it easier to store and transport and reducing packaging costs. It also allows the lid to be placed upright in the unfolding position, preventing the bottom of the lid from getting dusty or contaminated with bacteria from contacting the table, ensuring the lid is clean and hygienic and improving the user experience” (Pg. 2, Paragraph 0004), as recognized by Wang. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3322 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5pm . 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 Helena Kosanovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9059 . 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. /EMMA E ULATOWSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/11/2026 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761