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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
The status of the 01/21/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 3, and 6 have been amended; Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn; and Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastroianni (US 20150047511) in view of Cohen (US 10568350) and Wilcox (US 20220104653)
Regarding Claim 1, Mastroianni discloses a popcorn popper (popping unit; figs. 11-15) comprising:
a base assembly (blower unit 224) comprising a source of heated air (blower unit 224, para. 0040; fig. 12);
a popping flange (outer ring 252; fig. 13), and a popping chamber (cooking surface 254, grate 256, para. 0041. It is noted surface 254 and grate 256 forms the popping chamber that supports the kernel to be popped), the popping chamber being a recess formed by an opening in the popping flange (outer ring 252) (it is noted the outer ring 252 has an opening to allow the popped corn to go from the chamber to the container 216) and a diffuser (cooking grate 256) affixed thereto (para. 0041);
a bowl (unit 210; fig. 14) that is separable from the base assembly (blower unit 224) (para. 0038), the bowl (unit 210; fig. 14) sized such that the base assembly (blower unit 224) is insertable into the bowl (carafe 216) in a nested configuration for storage (figs. 14-15) (according to Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nest, “nest” is interpreted to mean to fit within one another). It is noted the portion 264 of the blower unit 224 is insertable into the unit 210 in the nested configuration when the device is not in use);
PNG
media_image1.png
226
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a container (it is noted the container is the enclosure formed by carafe 216, outer ring 252, cooking surface 254, grate 256) formed by the bowl (carafe 216), the popping flange (outer ring 252; fig. 13), and the popping chamber (cooking surface 254, grate 256, para. 0041. It is noted surface 254 and grate 256 forms the popping chamber that supports the kernel to be popped), wherein both popped and unpopped popcorn are present in the container during use (para. 0043) (it is noted the kernels are supported in the cooking surface 254 and grate 256 and are heated to pop and are held in the enclosure), the container configured to retain the popped popcorn (it is noted the container is capable of retaining the popped popcorn), the popping flange (outer ring 252; fig. 13) comprising a slope which directs unpopped popcorn located within the container into the popping chamber (cooking surface 254, grate 256) (it is noted the outer ring 252; fig. 13 has downward-incline surface toward the cooking surface 254 and grate 256, therefore the outer ring 252 is capable of directing unpopped popcorn into the chamber defined by the cooking surface 254 and grate 256 until popping is complete);
heated air from the source of heated air (blower unit 224, para. 0040), directed into the popping chamber (chamber defined by the cooking surface 254 and grate 256) before passing through the container (fig. 13) whereupon the popped popcorn is agitated by the heated air (para. 0043), the heated air exiting the container via an air exit (perforations 232) formed in the bowl (para. 0039).
Mastroianni does not disclose:
the base assembly comprising the popping flange, and the popping chamber; and
the entire base assembly is received within the bowl for compact storage.
However, Cohen discloses a base assembly (base) comprises a popping flange, and a popping chamber (col. 3, lines 35-37, 40-45; fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the popping flange and the popping chamber of Mastroianni to be part of the base assembly as taught by Cohen, in order to make the carafe 216 more lightweight that can be used as the serving bowl, that is easy to carry and to clean.
The modification does not disclose the entire base assembly is received within the bowl for compact storage.
However, Wilcox discloses the entire base assembly (annotated fig. 2) is received within the bowl (pot 108) for compact storage (para. 0045-0046; figs. 4-6).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
444
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base assembly and the bowl of Mastroianni in view of Cohen in such a manner that the base assembly is inserted within the bowl when not in use, thereby saving storage space.
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses the bowl (unit 210 of Mastroianni) sized such that the popping flange (it is noted the modification of claim 1 would result in the outer ring 252 of Mastroianni to be part of the base assembly 224) rests on an upper rim portion of the bowl (annotated fig. below) when in the nested configuration and wherein the popping flange (outer ring 252 of Mastroianni) forms a lid covering the bowl opening when nested (it is noted the modification of claim 1 would result the outer ring 252 to be part of the base assembly 224. When the base assembly 224 is inserted into the bowl 210 for storage, the outer ring 252 of the base assembly 224 would form the lid that partially covers at least the bowl opening).
PNG
media_image5.png
569
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Mastroianni discloses a device for popping popcorn (popping unit; figs. 11-16) comprising:
a popping flange (outer ring 252; fig. 13), and a popping chamber (cooking surface 254, grate 256, para. 0041. It is noted surface 254 and grate 256 forms the popping chamber that supports the kernel to be popped) comprising a diffuser (cooking grate 256 and cooking surface 254), the popping chamber forming a recess opening in the popping flange (para. 0041; figs. 13-14),
a base assembly (blower unit 224) comprises a blower (fan 244), a heater (heating element 246), and the blower (fan 244) configured to force air through the heater (heating element 246) and the diffuser (cooking grate 256 and cooking surface 254. It is noted the grate 256 allows heated air through, in other words it diffuses the heated air) (para. 0043 and 0040), the popping flange (outer ring 252) formed in a concave shape when viewed externally from the base assembly (blower unit 224) (fig. 14);
a bowl assembly (unit 210) comprising a bowl (carafe 216) having a first end (annotated fig. 12) and a second end (annotated fig. 12), the second end configured with vents (lid 230 with perforations 232);
the first end of the bowl (annotated fig. 12) adapted to be positioned on the popping flange (outer ring 252) (para. 0041; fig. 12) such that the bowl (carafe 216) and popping flange (outer ring 252) form a container which retains popped and unpopped corn during a popping process (para. 0043); and
the bowl (carafe 216) being separable from the base assembly (blower unit 224) (fig. 12), the bowl (carafe 216; fig. 14) sized such that the base assembly (blower unit 224) is insertable into the bowl (carafe 216) in a nested configuration when the device for popping popcorn is not in use (figs. 14-15) (according to Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nest, “nest” is interpreted to mean to fit within one another). It is noted the portion 264 of the blower unit 224 is insertable into the carafe 216 in the nested configuration when the device is not in use);
PNG
media_image1.png
226
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
562
547
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mastroianni does not disclose:
the base assembly comprises the popping flange, the popping chamber comprising the diffuser;
the first end having an unobstructed opening that spans substantially the entire diameter of the bowl wherein the unobstructed opening enables the base assembly to be fully inserted into the bowl; and
the bowl is sized such that the entire base assembly is received within the bowl and the popping flange rests on an upper rim of the bowl when the device for popping popcorn is not in use.
However, Cohen discloses a base assembly (base) comprises a popping flange, and a popping chamber comprising the diffuser (col. 3, lines 35-37, 40-45; figs. 6 and 8C) (it is noted because the screen 300 is removably attached to the container. Prior to being attached to the screen 300, the container has an unobstructed opening as shown in annotated fig. 8D at its first end that spans the diameter of the container).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
558
775
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the popping flange and the popping chamber of Mastroianni to be part of the base assembly as taught by Cohen, in order to make the carafe 216 more lightweight that can be used as the serving bowl, that is easy to carry and to clean. The modification would result in the structure, in which the first end of the bowl assembly having an unobstructed opening that spans substantially the entire diameter of the bowl.
The modification does not disclose:
wherein the unobstructed opening enables the base assembly to be fully inserted into the bowl; and
the bowl is sized such that the entire base assembly is received within the bowl and the popping flange rests on an upper rim of the bowl when the device for popping popcorn is not in use.
However, Wilcox discloses the entire base assembly (annotated fig. 2) is received within the bowl (pot 108) for compact storage (para. 0045-0046; figs. 4-6).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
444
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base assembly and the bowl of Mastroianni in view of Cohen in such a manner that the base assembly is inserted within the bowl when not in use, thereby saving storage space. The modification would result in the structure as shown below, in which the popping flange (it is noted the modification would result in the outer ring 252 of Mastroianni to be part of the base assembly 224) rests on an upper rim portion of the bowl (annotated fig. below) when the device is not in use because the base assembly 224 is supported by the bowl 210. The resultant structure would allow the opening of the first end of the bowl to enable the base assembly to be fully inserted into the bowl because the bowl is made larger than the base assembly to receive the entire base assembly.
PNG
media_image8.png
569
578
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Mastroianni discloses the device (popping unit; figs. 11-16), wherein the bowl (carafe 216) is formed in a cylindrical shape (fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Mastroianni discloses the device (popping unit; figs. 11-16), wherein the diffuser (cooking grate 256 and cooking surface 254) is adapted to retain unpopped popcorn (kernels) while heated air (heated air) is passed through the unpopped popcorn (para. 0043).
Regarding Claim 11, Mastroianni discloses the device (popping unit; figs. 11-16), wherein the popping flange (outer ring 252) is formed in a concave shape (fig. 13) such that the diffuser (cooking grate 256 and cooking surface 254) is located at a depression formed by the concave shape (para. 0041; fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the concave shape of the popping flange comprises a concave slope between 2 degrees and 45 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the concave shape of the popping flange (outer ring 252 of Mastroianni) to have the concave slope between 2 degrees and 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the kernels would be guided via the sloping surface of the outer ring 252 to heating chamber formed by the cooking surface 254 and the cooking grate 256, where the heated air is directed to heat the kernels (para. 0042 of Mastroianni). Doing so would ensure all of the kernels are exposed to the heated air to form popcorn.
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the concave shape having a slope between 5 degrees and 10 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the concave shape of the popping flange (outer ring 252 of Mastroianni) to have the concave slope between 5 degrees and 10 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the kernels would be guided via the sloping surface of the outer ring 252 to the cooking surface 254 and the cooking grate 256, where the heated air is directed to heat the kernels (para. 0042 of Mastroianni). Doing so would ensure all of the kernels are exposed to the heated air to form popcorn.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Mastroianni (US 20150047511), Cohen (US 10568350), and Wilcox (US 20220104653) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Bond (US 20170094992)
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Mastroianni discloses the popping chamber comprises air entry vents (grate 256) (para. 0041).
The modification does not disclose the popping chamber comprises air entry vents located in a side wall portion of the popping chamber, the air entry vents comprising deflectors that cause the incoming heated air to circulate in a rotating direction.
However, Bond discloses the popping chamber (unit 17) comprises the air entry vents (louvers 31 of agitator) located in a side wall portion of the popping chamber, the air entry vents (louvers 31) comprising deflectors (louvers 31) that cause the incoming heated air to circulate in a rotating direction (“circulate, and agitate the corn kernels about the center of the agitator and convection unit 17”, para. 0016).
PNG
media_image9.png
404
398
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the popping chamber of Mastroianni in view of Cohen and Wilcox (i.e. modify the cooking surface 254 to include the air entry vents to cause the incoming heated air to circulate in the rotating direction) as taught by Bond, in order to circulate and agitate the kernels in the heating chamber formed by the cooking surface 254 and grate 256 to ensure the kernels are uniformly cooked to form popcorn (abstract of Bond).
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Mastroianni discloses the diffuser (grate 256, cooking surface 254) comprises vent slots (“Hot air passes through the grate 256 into the carafe”, para. 0041).
The modification does not disclose the vent slots configured to direct the heated air away from the popping flange such that unpopped popcorn moves in a circular motion away from the opening formed in the popping flange while exposed to the heated air.
However, Bond discloses the vent slots (louvers 31 of agitator and convection unit 17) configured to direct the heated air away such that unpopped popcorn moves in a circular motion away while exposed to the heated air (louvers 31 of agitator and convection unit 17) configured to direct the heated air to create a swirling motion of unpopped popcorn (“circulate, and agitate the corn kernels about the center of the agitator and convection unit 17”, para. 0016) located in the diffuser (agitator and convection unit 17) (para. 0016).
PNG
media_image9.png
404
398
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffuser of Mastroianni in view of Cohen and Wilcox (i.e. modify the cooking surface 254 of Mastroianni to include the vent slots to create the swirling motion of the unpopped popcorn) as taught by Bond, in order to circulate and agitate the kernels in the heating chamber formed by the cooking surface 254 and grate 256 to ensure the kernels are uniformly cooked to form popcorn (abstract of Bond). The modification would result in the vent slots (louvers 31 of Bond) configured to direct the heated air away from the popping flange (outer ring 252; fig. 13 of Mastroianni) such that unpopped popcorn moves in a circular motion away from the opening formed in the popping flange while exposed to the heated air (it is noted the popcorn is agitated and moved in circular motion away from the opening formed in the popping flange while exposed to heated air).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Mastroianni (US 20150047511), Cohen (US 10568350), and Wilcox (US 20220104653) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lee (US 5501139)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the air exit is formed by a grating sized to prevent passage of popped popcorn.
However, Lee discloses an air exit (flap 17; figs. 3-4) is formed by a grating sized to prevent passage of popped popcorn (popped kernels) (col. 1, 2 lines 57-62, and 1-3 respectively, and abstract) (it is noted that flap 17, when in a closed position, is capable of keeping the popped kernels within the chamber 10 that are larger than the openings of the flap 17).
PNG
media_image10.png
318
280
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the air exit of Mastroianni in view of Cohen and Wilcox (i.e. modify the perforations 232 of Mastroianni) with the air exit of Lee (i.e. flap 17) because it involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to arrive at an expected result, which is to allow the heated air to exit the container and keep the popped popcorn within the container when the flap is in the closed position (abstract of Lee).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Mastroianni (US 20150047511), Cohen (US 10568350), and Wilcox (US 20220104653) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, further in view of Barrows (US 20110274804)
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the bowl assembly also comprises a removable cap that is adapted to cover the air exit.
However, Barrows discloses a bowl assembly (cover 170; fig. 1. It is noted that cover 170 resembles a bowl) also comprises a removable cap (lid 192) that is adapted to cover the air exit (air vents 178) (“cover 170 can further comprise a lid 192 adapted to interface with wall 190 to cover the air vents 178 and drains 184 when the popcorn maker 100 is not in use or if cover 170 is inverted for use as a serving bowl”, para. 0036).
PNG
media_image11.png
510
426
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bowl assembly of Mastroianni in view of Cohen and Wilcox (i.e. modify the carafe 216 of Mastroianni) to include the removable cap that is adapted to cover the air exit (perforations 232 of Mastroianni) as taught by Barrows, such that the carafe 216 of Mastroianni can be used as the serving bowl when inverted. When the carafe 216 is inverted to be used as the serving bowl, the perforations 232 would be covered by the lid 192 of Barrows to prevent grease or oil from dropping through the perforations.
Regarding Claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the bowl assembly also comprising a removable cap that is adapted to cover the vents when positioned on the second end of the bowl.
However, Barrows discloses a bowl assembly (cover 170; fig. 1. It is noted that cover 170 resembles a bowl) also comprises a removable cap (lid 192) that is adapted to cover the vents (air vents 178) when positioned on the second end of the bowl (“cover 170 can further comprise a lid 192 adapted to interface with wall 190 to cover the air vents 178 and drains 184 when the popcorn maker 100 is not in use or if cover 170 is inverted for use as a serving bowl”, para. 0036).
PNG
media_image12.png
498
408
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bowl assembly of Mastroianni (i.e. carafe 216) in view of Cohen and Wilcox to include the removable cap that is adapted to cover the vents (perforations 232 of Mastroianni) as taught by Barrows, such that the carafe 216 of Mastroianni can be used as the serving bowl when inverted. When the carafe 216 is inverted to be used as the serving bowl, the perforations 232 would be covered by the lid 192 of Barrows to prevent grease or oil from dropping through the perforations.
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendment made to claim 1, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/21/2026 with respect to prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument: on p. 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “Applicant disagrees with the Office with regard to the Office's characterization of flap 17 of Lee. In particular, Applicant note that the Office has added the descriptor of "air exit flap" without any support from Lee to that function. The flap clearly does not extent across the entire exit portion of the popper of lee and the only function claimed by Lee is that of retaining popped kernels. There is no mention of air passing through a grating as asserted by the Office and no indication in Lee that the vertical shapes are openings and not just variations in the surface of the flap portion. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that Lee does not disclose the required grating. Applicant thus asserts that the rejection of claim 4 is improper.”
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the flap 17 of Lee (claimed grating) forms air exit because the flap 17 comprises the openings that allow heated air to pass through. The kernels in the container 10 is subjected to hot air to make popped kernels. Therefore, the openings of the flap 17 allows heated air to exit through the openings. The flap 17 covers the container 10 to retain popped kernels. The claim does not require the flap to extent across the entire exit portion of the popper of Lee as implied by the Applicant (abstract and col. 1, 2 lines 57-62, and 1-3 respectively).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761