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. 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. Claim 3 recites, “means for securing said heating insert to said base.” This limitation is being interpreted as described in Applicant’s filed specification: “The upper face of the base 18 could have a suction cup (not shown) integrally and monolithically formed thereon to engage the lower face of the heating insert 16 . The heating insert 16 could be glued (not shown) to the base 18. In the preferred form shown, the sidewall 18 includes one or more locking ribs 46 extending radially inward to overlie the peripheral edge of the heating insert 16 . … While a plurality of discrete fingers could be used, the embodiment shown uses a single locking rib 46 extending about and overlying the entire periphery of the heating insert 16. As may be envisioned, the locking rib 46 will serve to elastically retain the heating insert 16 in place upon the base 18 ” [0040]. 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. (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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) . Regarding claim 1, Samuels disclose an apparatus (“ovenware for microwave oven” [Title]) , comprising: a main body (Fig. 1B, “body 2” [0037]) having a base (see annotated Fig. 1B) , and at least one sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1B) extending upward from a periphery of said base, said at least one sidewall extending upward to an upper rim (see annotated Fig. 1B) , said main body formed of a polymeric material (the following describes a heating “insert” and “the rest of the piece of ovenwear ”; “the rest of the piece of ovenwear ” corresponds to the main body: “The insert may be permanently attached to the piece of ovenware or may be detachable or not attached at all to the rest of the ovenware part. For example, if the rest of the piece of ovenware is also a composition which contains thermoplastic polymer, …” [0017]) a cover sized to rest upon said upper rim, and selectively removable therefrom (cover is shown in Fig. 7: “The ovenware item (such as those in FIGS. 1-6) may also have a top (see FIG. 7) which fits on top of the ovenware item or directly on top of the food in the ovenware item. This top may simply be used to close off the top of the ovenware item, much as a top is used on a conventional metal pot” [0043]) ; and a heating insert (Fig. 1B, “insert 1” [0037]) mounted within said main body adjacent said base (Fig. 1B) , said heating insert, said at least one sidewall, and said cover defining an inner chamber for heating food, wherein said heating insert is formed of an material which absorbs microwave energy and therefore heats faster, compared to said polymeric material (“2 is the body of the frying pan that is made of a thermo-plastic composition that has no susceptor and a relatively low thermal conductivity” [0037]; The high thermal conductivity of the insert 1 allows heat to flow readily to the upper surface 5 and hence to the food being cooked” [0037]) . Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein the apparatus is a popcorn maker . However, the phrase popcorn maker denotes the intended use of the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114. In this case, the apparatus of Samuels is capable of functioning as a popcorn maker. Fig. 1B of Samuels, annotated Regarding claim 3, Samuels discloses means for securing said heating insert to said base (Fig. 1B shows “beveled edge 4 of 1, and how 2 is overmolded over this beveled edge to hold 1 in place” [0037]; the portion of 2, that has a shape corresponding to the beveled edge of insert 1, is the means for securing heating insert 1 to the base of body 2). 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Simard (WO 2008/124942) and Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217). Regarding claim 2, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said polymeric material is silicone, and said heating insert is formed of borosilicate glass. Simard is directed to a flexible container that can be used for storing, cooking, or refrigerating food [0001]. Simard discloses a cooking container made of silicone (“container 10 … is entirely made of a flexible and resiliently stretchable material such as, for example, a silicone material approved for containing, preserving and processing edible foods and liquids. Such silicone material is generally oven and microwave safe for cooking food up to at least 500 °F” [0034]). 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 include wherein said polymeric material is silicone . Silicone is a microwave-safe material, known for use in cooking containers. Furthermore, the courts have held it to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07. Mazzon is directed to a cooking accessory for high-frequency dielectric heating [Abstract], such as microwave heating [0009]. Mazzon discloses a susceptor formed of borosilicate glass ( “at least one susceptor element may comprise at least one material or a combination of materials selected from the group comprising: ceramic, glass-ceramic, borosilicate glass, metal. The material may be selected according to the desired absorption requirements” [ 0047]). 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 include wherein said heating insert is formed of borosilicate glass . Borosilicate glass is a known susceptor material, as recognized by Mazzon . One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a material, such as borosilicate glass, that has desired microwave energy absorption requirements. Furthermore, the courts have held it to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Williams (AU 2015201327) is directed to a popcorn maker comprising a container, a lid, and a removable insert. Geissler (US 5,397,879) is directed to a microwave corn popper device comprising a container, lid, and susceptor. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3073 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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 Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5095 . 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. /ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761