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/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-5 , drawn to an improved cake baking mechanism , classified in USPC 99/426. II. Claim 6 , drawn to an improved method for baking a cake or other dessert product , classified in USPC 426 /128. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II- are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case , the product as claimed can be used in materially different process, such as steaming a cake. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter. The inventions require a different filed of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. the in inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Applicant’s representative Anna Kinney on 2/3/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-5 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1 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 1 , the limitation “the improvement” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the improvement” is interpreted to be the improved cake baking mechanism. Regarding claim 5 , the limitation “an area of a plane parallel to the bottom surface increases as a spacing between the plane and bottom surface increases” is indefinite, because the plane and its area are undefined , and it is unclear the plane is a physical structure or merely an imagery plane. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph , as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 5 , the limitation in this claim relates to a plane, which does not relate to the structure of the claim invention. Therefore, the plane does not further limit the claimed invention Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims 1 , 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oscar (US 1727257) in view of Ross (US 5932098). Regarding claim 1 , Oscar teaches a n improved cake baking mechanism ( see fig.1) for use with a cake pan having an inner bottom surface of predetermined configuration defining a predetermined surface area and a sidewall disposed transverse to the bottom surface [Examiner’s note: The cake pan is clearly an external structure that associated with the cake baking mechanism. Therefore the structure and the function of the cake pan does not further limit the improved cake baking mechanism.] wherein the improvement consists essentially of: an apertured base (base 10) defining the surface area and the configuration of the inner bottom surface (the surface of base 10 is capable to define a surface area.) , wherein at least one aperture (opening 20) of the base; a shaft (shaft 21) having opposite end portions, wherein one of the end portions is connected to the base (base 10) (see fig.1) ; and a handle (a top portion of shaft 21) secured to the other one of the end portions of the shaft (shaft 21) (see fig.4) . Oscar does not explicitly teach at least one aperture of the base includes internal threads , and one of the end portions of the shaft is threadedly connected to the base by the internal threads of the at least one aperture . However, Ross teaches in the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising at least one aperture (hub 71) on a base (support plate 70 ) includes internal threads (inner screw threads 72) and one of the end portions of a shaft (vertical rod 38) is threadedly connected to the base by the internal threads of the at least one aperture (See fig.3 and col.4, line 31 “The outer screw threads 59 of the vertical rod 38 are further threaded with the inner screw threads 72 of the protruding hub 71 . ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the connection between the base and the shaft with a shaft is threadedly connected to the base by the internal threads of the at least one aperture as taught by Ross, in order to connect the shaft and the base by a conventional structure. Regarding claim 3 , Oscar teaches the shaft (shaft 21) is tubular, with a sidewall defining an airspace therein (See 1, shaft 21 is tubular, with a sidewall defining an airspace therein). Regarding claim 4 , Oscar teaches the bottom surface is triangular, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, octagonal, elliptical, or circular (See fig.3, the surface of base 10 is circular.) Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Oscar and Ross in view of Mc D e r mott (US 2486489) Regarding claim 2 , the modification of Oscar and Ross does not explicitly teach the handle and shaft are joined in a T-shape. However, Mc D e r mott teaches in the same filed of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a handle (knob 11) and a shaft (rod 8) are joined in a T-shape (see fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the handle of Oscar with the handle joined with a shaft in a T-shape as taught by McDermott, in order to provide a handle with desired shape that can be hold by users easier. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8241 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00 . 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 Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5569 . 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. /CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761