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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 4-20 are new. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2026 and 7/17/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 recites “a periphery of said base.” Since claim 1 already recites “a periphery of said base,” Examiner suggests replacing the above language of claim 19 with “the periphery of said base” to establish proper antecedent basis. 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.
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 § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217).
Regarding claim 1, Samuels discloses 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 said heating insert is formed of borosilicate glass.
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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
Regarding claim 4, Samuels discloses wherein said at least one sidewall includes at least one locking rib (Fig. 1B, locking rib / overmolded portion of 2: Fig. 1B shows “beveled edge 4 of 1, and how 2 is overmolded over this beveled edge to hold 1 in place” [0037]) extending radially inward therefrom and overlying a peripheral edge of said heating insert to retain said heating insert adjacent said base (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Samuels discloses wherein said at least one locking rib is monolithically formed with said at least one sidewall (Fig. 1B, locking rib / overmolded portion 2; “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. The body 2 is overmolded over the edge of 1, and both of 3 are (optional) molded-in handles. FIG. 1b shows 1, 2, and 3 in cross section, and in particular shows the beveled edge 4 of 1, and how 2 is overmolded over this beveled edge to hold 1 in place” [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Samuels discloses wherein said heating insert is retained by said at least one locking rib (Fig. 1B, “body 2 is overmolded over the edge of 1, and both of 3 are (optional) molded-in handles. FIG. 1b shows 1, 2, and 3 in cross section, and in particular shows the beveled edge 4 of 1, and how 2 is overmolded over this beveled edge to hold 1 in place” [0037]).
Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said heating insert is removably retained by said at least one locking rib.
However, the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C.
Regarding claim 7, Samuels discloses wherein said at least one locking rib extends continuously about the entire peripheral edge of said heating insert (“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. The body 2 is overmolded over the edge of 1, and both of 3 are (optional) molded-in handles. FIG. 1b shows 1, 2, and 3 in cross section, and in particular shows the beveled edge 4 of 1, and how 2 is overmolded over this beveled edge to hold 1 in place” [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 1B of Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said heating insert has a dished shape that is concave upward, said dished shape directing kernels toward a center of said heating insert and away from said at least one sidewall.
However, Samuels disclose, in Fig. 5, wherein said heating insert has a dished shape that is concave upward (Fig. 5, “FIG. 5 shows a cross section of a microwave wok, with the insert 16 being at the bottom of the generally spherical wok (the thermal heat source for a wok is usually underneath the wok) being overmolded with a body 17 that has handles 18” [0041]; the shape of the heating insert of Fig. 5 is capable of directing kernels toward a center of said heating insert and away from at least one sidewall).
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 has a dished shape that is concave upward, said dished shape directing kernels toward a center of said heating insert and away from said at least one sidewall. This is a known, alternative shape of the heating insert, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Samuels discloses wherein said heating insert rests directly upon said base (see annotated Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 17, Samuels discloses wherein said heating insert covers an inner face of said base such that a periphery of said heating insert coincides with said at least one sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of Simard (WO 2008/124942).
Regarding claim 2, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said polymeric material is silicone.
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. Therefore, Simard discloses a known element, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results. 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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of DeCarlo et al. (US 2016/0244216).
Regarding claim 8, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said main body includes one or more apertures extending through said at least one sidewall below said upper rim.
DeCarlo is directed to a microwaveable container ([0006], [0029]). DeCarlo discloses wherein a main body (Fig. 9, main body comprise sidewall 24 and descending sidewall 27 [0064]) includes one or more apertures (Fig. 9, openings 31 [0064]) extending through said at least one sidewall (Fig. 9, descending sidewall 27) below said upper rim (Fig. 9)
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 main body includes one or more apertures extending through said at least one sidewall below said upper rim. The apertures allow for a cover to be locked in place [0064].
Regarding claim 9, Samuels / DeCarlo does not expressly disclose wherein said one or more apertures are sized to permit egress of unpopped kernels therethrough while preventing egress of popped popcorn.
However, the courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Regarding claim 10, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said cover includes a partial skirt extending downward from a lower face of said cover, said partial skirt being positioned and sized to occlude said one or more apertures when said cover rests upon said upper rim.
DeCarlo discloses wherein a cover (Fig. 10, container lid 30 [0061], shown upside down) includes a partial skirt (Fig. 10, skirt / hinge 40 comprising connection tabs 37 [0064]) extending downward from a lower face of said cover (Fig. 10), said partial skirt being positioned and sized to occlude said one or more apertures when said cover rests upon said upper rim (Fig. 10, connection tabs 37 are inserted into openings 31, thus occluding the openings [0064]).
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 cover includes a partial skirt extending downward from a lower face of said cover, said partial skirt being positioned and sized to occlude said one or more apertures when said cover rests upon said upper rim. This allows for the cover to be locked in place.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of JP 3162971.
Regarding claim 12, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said upper rim includes a pair of peripherally opposed grip handles extending radially outward therefrom.
JP 3162971 is directed to a popcorn maker [Title]. JP 3162971 discloses wherein an upper rim (Fig. 1, upper rim 22 of lower container 20) includes a pair of peripherally opposed grip handles (Fig. 1, grip handles 27) extending radially outward therefrom (Fig. 1).
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 upper rim includes a pair of peripherally opposed grip handles extending radially outward therefrom. This allows for a comfortable means for holding the container.
Regarding claim 13, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said cover includes a pair of cover handles extending radially outward therefrom and positioned to overlie said grip handles when said cover rests upon said upper rim.
JP 3162971 discloses wherein a cover (Fig. 1, cover / upper container 10) includes a pair of cover handles (Fig. 1, cover handles 17) extending radially outward therefrom (Fig. 1) and positioned to overlie said grip handles when said cover rests upon said upper rim (Figs. 1 and 2).
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 cover includes a pair of cover handles extending radially outward therefrom and positioned to overlie said grip handles when said cover rests upon said upper rim. This ultimately provides a location for holding a spatula or other popcorn cooking utensil [page 5 of attached translation].
Regarding claim 14, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said cover handles and said grip handles cooperate to limit rotational positioning of said cover upon said upper rim to two orientations.
JP 3162971 discloses wherein said cover handles (Fig. 1, cover handles 17) and said grip handles (Fig. 1, grip handles 27) cooperate to limit rotational positioning of said cover upon said upper rim to two orientations (Fig. 2, when spatula is in place as shown in Fig. 2, rotational positioning of the cover upon the upper rim is limited to two orientations).
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 cover handles and said grip handles cooperate to limit rotational positioning of said cover upon said upper rim to two orientations. This ultimately provides a location for holding a spatula or other popcorn cooking utensil [page 5 of attached translation].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of Watkins (US 2003/0080121).
Regarding claim 18, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said base includes one or more vent channels in an upper surface thereof disposed beneath said heating insert to permit passage of steam from beneath said heating insert.
Watkins is directed to a microwaveable container [Title]. Watkins discloses wherein a base (Fig. 6, “floor 30” [0044], shown with “seal 44” [0044]) includes one or more vent channels in an upper surface thereof (“One or more openings (not shown) can be provided through the sheet of barrier material 40, outside of the pocket 42 beyond the seal 44, to form release vents for allowing steam and expanding air to escape during heating” [0044]) disposed beneath said heating insert to permit passage of steam from beneath said heating insert (Fig. 1 shows the location of heating insert / “susceptor 32” [0040]).
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 base includes one or more vent channels in an upper surface thereof disposed beneath said heating insert to permit passage of steam from beneath said heating insert. This advantageously allows for steam to escape during heating [0044].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of Barea et al. (US 2018/0035494).
Regarding claim 19, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said base includes a base skirt extending downward from a periphery of said base.
Barea is directed to a microwaveable container [Title]. Barea discloses wherein a base (Fig. 6, which is a upside-down view of microwaveable container / “pan 2” [0067]; base is “pan bottom 4” [0067]) includes a base skirt (Fig. 6, base skirt is portion that extends downward from pan bottom 4 and includes “feet 35” [0067] extending downward from a periphery of said base (Fig. 4).
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 base includes a base skirt extending downward from a periphery of said base. This advantageously allows for “stabiliz[ing] the pan 2 in the microwave as well as maintaining a minimum distance between the pan bottom 4 and the bottom of the microwave” [0067].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US 2006/0219713) in view of Mazzon et al. (EP 4017217), further in view of Mishra et al. (WO 2018/148562).
Regarding claim 20, Samuels does not expressly disclose wherein said main body is a monolithic body formed of an elastomeric material, said main body being collapsible between an operative configuration and a collapsed configuration.
Mishra is directed to a microwaveable tray [006]. Mishra discloses wherein a main body is a monolithic body formed of an elastomeric material, said main body being collapsible between an operative configuration and a collapsed configuration (Figs. 1 and 3 show “tray 10” [024], with Figs. 4A and 4B showing a side of the tray in a collapsed state and in an expanded state, respectively [042]; “support layer 130 may be formed from a polyethylene terephthalate layer of material” [028]; support layer 130 is shown in Figs. 1 and 3; since the polyethylene terephthalate can be collapsed and expanded, it is considered to be an elastomeric material).
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 main body is a monolithic body formed of an elastomeric material, said main body being collapsible between an operative configuration and a collapsed configuration. This allows for the main body to have a smaller size when not in use (i.e., when not filled with food), thus saving space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues against the obviousness of Mazzon’s teaching of using borosilicate glass. Applicant states:
PNG
media_image2.png
184
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Mazzon teaches that borosilicate glass is a material that can be used as a susceptor. A susceptor, by definition, is “a material that absorbs electromagnetic energy” [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/susceptor]. Mazzon describes several materials that can be used as susceptors. While Mazzon describes that ceramic has relatively high absorptivity, and borosilicate glass has relatively low absorptivity, this is not a teaching away of using borosilicate glass. As described in the rejection of previous claim 2, and now claim 1, 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.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues against the Simard reference, stating:
PNG
media_image3.png
82
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
187
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Simard is considered to be analogous art, since Simard is directed to a flexible container that can be used for storing, cooking, or refrigerating food. Simard is relied upon as disclosing wherein silicone is a microwave-safe material, known for use in cooking containers. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein said partial skirt includes a cutout, said cover being selectively positionable upon said upper rim in a first orientation in which said cutout overlies said one or more apertures such that said apertures are unoccluded, and a second orientation in which said partial skirt occludes said one or more apertures, as required in claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights