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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applicant has adequate support in the present application for the claim limitation of claim 2 which recites “wherein at least one of an outer surface of said shaft and an inner surface of said bushing are coated with a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” as opposed to the lubricant taught in Baumann which also serves to reduce friction in a rotating apparatus. Applicant has not pointed to any limitation in the claim language which distinguishes the bushing coated with a material to reduce friction of applicant's invention from those taught by Baumann. As such, the applicant has also not established adequate support in the claims nor specification of the instant application for what said friction reduction material is meant to be. The applicant is respectfully reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner would expect a material to be identified in the specification of the instant application with adequate properties to reduce friction. With this being absent in the specification, the interpretation of “….a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” is extremely broad because of the applicant’s lack of disclosure and is met by the “obvious to try” rejection of Baumann herein.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s towards Baumann the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant of the 112(a) rejection herein and further argues that the examiner would expect a material to be identified in the specification of the instant application with adequate properties to reduce friction. With this being absent in the specification, the interpretation of “….a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” is extremely broad because of the applicant’s lack of disclosure and is met by the “obvious to try” rejection of Baumann herein.
Claim objections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/9/2026, with respect to claim objections for claim 2 has been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 11/10/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, the recitation of “at least one of an outer surface of said shaft and an inner surface of said bushing are coated with a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” 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. In particular, no disclosure of “….a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is leass[sic] than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” was found in the original specification. The examiner would expect a material to be identified in the specification of the instant application with adequate properties to reduce friction. With this being absent in the specification, the interpretation of “….a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing” is extremely broad because of the applicant’s lack of disclosure.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “said opening extending into said bushing a distance sufficient to receive a length portion of said shaft sufficient to maintain said top surface of said heater plate in a plane parallel to said plane extending across said open top portion” is unclear what length the length portion has to be to be considered of sufficient length.
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)(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, 3, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230225541 A1 Priya
Regarding claim 1,
Priya teaches,
An electrically powered crepe maker (cooking apparatus 100) comprising:
a) a cylindrical base unit (heater plate assembly 102) having an open top portion (upper surface of front heater plate 102a) and a closed bottom portion (plate support frame 110), including an electrical heater element (heating element 146, in the alternative induction coil 166) disposed adjacent said top portion (figs. 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 5), a base plate (rear surface 148) disposed between said heater element and said closed bottom portion (fig. 4) and a bushing (see annotated fig. 2 below) centered on said base plate herein a portion of said bushing is directly adjacent to and fixedly connected to a bottom portion of said base plate (fig. 4), said bushing having one end extending through said base plate ending below a plane extending across said open top portion (figs. 2 and 4);
b) a cylindrical heater plate (heater plate 102a) having a top surface and a bottom surface (fig. 2, this is also discussed in the rejection of “having an open top portion (upper surface of front heater plate 102a)”) including a shaft (rotary connector 130) extending from said bottom surface and centered on said bottom surface (par. 73 and see cutaway of fig. 3);
c) at least one handle connected to an outer edge of said heater plate (feeder drive housing 120 is capable of functioning as a handle), wherein said shaft engages with said bushing so that said heater plate is rotatable on said base unit as said shaft rotates within said bushing (par. 73), said at least one handle usable for stopping and starting a rotation of said heater plate (par. 73 teaches feeder drive housing causing rotating force to heater plate 102a).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Priya teaches,
The electrically powered crepe maker defined by claim 1 (as discussed above)
wherein said bushing extends in a direction perpendicular to said bottom portion of said base unit and said shaft extends in a direction perpendicular to said bottom surface of said heater plate such that said shaft is received by said an opening formed at said second end of said bushing, said opening extending into said bushing a distance sufficient to receive a length portion of said shaft sufficient to maintain said top surface of said heater plate in a plane parallel to said plane extending across said open top portion (figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 4,
Priya teaches,
The electrically powered crepe maker defined by claim 1 (as discussed above)
further comprising a second handle (control panel 124 is capable of functioning as a handle) connected to said outer edge of the heater plate (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 5,
Priya teaches,
The electrically powered crepe maker defined by claim 4 (as discussed above)
wherein said first handle and said second handle are connected to said outer edge of the heater plate in a symmetrical relationship (fig. 1a).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230225541 A1 Priya in view of US 20110062672 A1 to Baumann.
Regarding claim 2, see 112(a) above.
Priya teaches, The electrically powered crepe maker defined by claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Priya does not teach: wherein at least one of an outer surface of said shaft and an inner surface of said bushing are coated with a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing.
Baumann teaches an upper sealing potion 15 and guide bushing 37 fitted with a rotary shaft 8 that needs to rotate within upper sealing portion 15 and guide bushing 37 to facilitate the turning off and on of the conventional globe valve of the invention of Baumann.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of friction reduction (Baumann par. 27).
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Baumann teaching that a lubricant can be applied to a shaft to bushing and shaft to seal interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the lubricant of Baumann at the interface of the rotary connector 130 and the bushing of Priya as discussed above to meet the limitation of wherein at least one of an outer surface of said shaft and an inner surface of said bushing are coated with a material which reduces friction between mating surfaces to an amount of friction which is less than an amount of friction without said material applied to said at least one of said outer surface of said shaft and said inner surface of said bushing.
The results would have been predictable, since Baumann teaches a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of friction reduction (Baumann par. 25-27).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce friction and facilitate rotational movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761