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. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because i n c laim 1 it is not clear what the base part and protruding part refer to. In addition, it is also unclear what the runway shaped contour referrers to. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected 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. 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: FILLIN "Identify each claim limitation." \d "[ 1 ]" " fishmouth lifiting lug" and "arc shaped protection lug" in claim 1. 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 Claim 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a “ fishmouth lifting lug” in line 8. There is insufficient description for the “ fishmouth lifting lug” and what it encompasses. Claim 2-6 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “ Fishmouth lifting lug” to be any are that either surrounds a latch or fastener or acts as a handle. 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 3 and 6 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. Claim 3 recites wherein a first sidewall of the protruding part is arc-shaped, and the first sidewall is adapted to an inner contour of the arc-shaped protection lug of the fish mouth lifting lug of the lower baking pan sheath. It is unclear what the sidewall is adapted to. Claim 6 recites a distance L2 between each of the upper and lower baking pans and the upper end of each reinforcing rib is 1 to 2.5 cm . It is unclear in the drawings and in the specification what L2 refers to. 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. Modified Figure 1 (Peng) Modified Figure 2 (Peng) Modified Figure 3 (Han) Modified Figure 4 (Han) Modified Figure 5 (Han) Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Peng (C.N. Patent Document No. 207334811) in view of Han ( U.S. Patent No. 2020022963 ) . Peng teaches: Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figur es 1 and 2 above) comprising an upper baking pan (1) , a lower baking pan (6) , an upper baking pan sheath (2) and a lower baking pan sheath (4) , wherein the outer surface of each of the upper and lower baking pans is provided with a microwave absorption layer (5) , and each of the upper and lower baking pan sheaths comprises a face cover part (2) and an edge cover part (3) . Regarding claim 4, (see modified Figures 1 and 2 above) wherein the elastic fastener comprises a fastening hole (11) part and a telescopic part (12) , the telescopic part being a thin-walled U bend. Regarding claim 6, (see modified Figures 1 and 2 above) wherein crisscrossed reinforcing ribs (13) are provided on the bottom inside each of the upper and lower baking pan sheathes . Peng does not teach: Regarding claim 1 each of the upper and lower baking pan sheaths is respectively provided with a fishmouth lifting lug on the front and rear side walls; each fishmouth lifting lug is provided with a notch in which an elastic fastener or an L-shaped convex buckle is provided; a positioning column is provided inside an arc-shaped protection lug on each of both sides of the fishmouth hanging lug of the upper baking pan sheath; and each positioning column is provided with a base part and a protruding part, the protruding part extending into the fishmouth lifting lug of the lower baking pan sheath. Regarding claim 6 does not disclose wherein a distance L2 between each of the upper and lower baking pans and the upper end of each reinforcing rib is 1 to 2.5 cm Han teaches: Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figure 3 4 5 above) a fishmouth lifting lug (103) on the front (284) and rear side (285) walls; each fishmouth lifting lug is provided with a notch in which an elastic fastener (71) or an L-shaped convex buckle (71) is provided; a positioning column (1030) is provided inside an arc-shaped protection lug (28) on each of both sides of the fishmouth hanging lug of the upper baking pan sheath; and each positioning column is provided with a base part (280) and a protruding part (286) , the protruding part extending into the fishmouth lifting lug of the lower baking pan sheath. Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fili ng date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng to incorporate the teachings of Han to add a fish mouth protection lug and a arc shaped protection lug around the elastic fastener that a microwave toasting over has a nice appearance and is easy to open and close. One of ordinary skill in the art could have added a protection lug around the fastener because the results of this substitution would have been predictable. Modified Figure 6 (Han) Han teaches Regarding Claim 2 (See Modified Figure 6 above) wherein the fishmouth lifting lugs are engaged to form a runway-shaped contour (103) , and an outer contour of the upper and lower baking pan sheaths while decked and closed is also in a runway shape (103) . Regarding Claim 3 (See Modified Figure 4 above) wherein a first sidewall of the protruding part (286) is arc-shaped (284), and the first sidewall is adapted to an inner contour of the arc-shaped protection lug (28) of the fishmouth lifting lug (103) of the lower baking pan sheath. Regarding Claim 5 Peng in view of Han does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the thin-walled U bend is 1/2 to 1/3 of the thickness of the fastening hole. However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (Modified Figure 1), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case the Peng teaches curtain size of the wall thickness compared to the fastening hole, and having a specific ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio from ½ to 1/3 of the thickness of the fastening hole is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Han further in view of Firth ( U.S. Patent No. 9702072 ). Firth teaches a protruding block having approximately a 1.27cm height may be formed, to create the waffle pattern on the bottom surface ( Col. 2 Lines 56-59 ). Firth teaches this in order to create the waffle pattern or crisscrossed ribs on the bottom surface ( Col. 2 Lines 56-59 ). Regarding claim 6 Firth does not explicitly disclose a distance L2 between each of the upper and lower baking pans and the upper end of each reinforcing rib is 1 to 2.5 cm It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of firth from between 1 to 2.5cm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim 541 f.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) because 1.27 cm falls within the claimed range of 1 to 2.5 cm. the thickness of the wall to control/achieve vary the thickness in comparison to the fastener in order to achieve a tight attachment to the buckle, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GARGI MANSINGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)357-5448 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-6:00pm M-Th . 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. /GARGI MANSINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761