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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8, 12, 17 and 18 in the reply filed on 26 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23, 24 and 26-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 5 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. Claim 5 recites the liner is a pliable sheet “including a rectangular or square sheet”. It is not clear whether the liner is required to be rectangular or square, or whether this is merely exemplary language. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(d) “ If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. ” Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-8, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Waitrose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBYurOpmRCo , published on line Nov. 12, 2013, retrieved Mar. 27, 2026. Regarding claims 1 -6 , Waitrose teaches a cake mold (the springform pan) comprising a mold wall (circumferential wall of the springform pan), a removable base interior to the mold wall (bottom of springform pan) and a pliable liner having a length greater than the perimeter length of the mold wall (parchment paper lining the circumferential wall of the springform pan) capable of being configured as in the claims when it is in use. (See approx. 2:19) Regarding claim 7, the parchment paper of Waitrose allows the transmission of some measure of visible light since it is not entirely opaque and is therefore interpreted to be transparent as recited in claim 7. Regarding claim 8 , Waitrose teaches applying grease spray to secure the liner in contact with the mold wall and therefore this grease spray is interpreted to read on the “retaining member” recited in claim 8. (see approx. 2:29) Regarding claim 12, it is clear from the Waitrose video that the height of the liner is between 2.5 and 40 cm given the height of the liner relative to the springform pan, the spray bottle and the person’s hands. Regarding claim 17, the parchment of Waitrose comprises cellulose which is a polymer. Regarding claim 18, the combination of mold, base and liner of Waitrose is considered to be a kit. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8905 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday from 10-6 . 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 Emily Le can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0903 . 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. /Michele L Jacobson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793