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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 18 September 2025. As directed by applicant, no claims are added or cancelled. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Bosch Siemens Hausgeraete (German Patent Publication DE102007032757A1) in view of Bayerlein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0292714) and Goldberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/ 0250386).
Regarding claim 1, Hausgeraete discloses a cooking hob (Fig. 2, below, ¶0001, hob plate 16) comprising a bottom wall (underside seen in fig. 2), a side wall (inherent that there would be side wall to a hob), a heating element (Hausgeraete, induction unit 14), and a fastening system (fig. 1, 12, each one of the fasteners) adapted to fix said heating element (14) in place relative to the hob (16, ¶20, “ The fastening unit 12 is intended for fastening the induction unit 14 to a hob plate 16”); the fastening system comprising at least three fasteners (as seen in fig. 1, evenly spaced around the heating element), each said fastener comprising a snap- in mechanism (Hausgeraete, ¶0026, “snapped in”) and a main body (80,82,84) fixedly connected to the bottom wall and/or the side wall of the cooking hob (¶0024, 0026, fastener is fixed to the hob)
PNG
media_image1.png
628
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Hausgeraete does not disclose wherein the snap-in mechanism of at least one of the fasteners has a movable hook element and a fixed hook element, wherein the movable hook element has a distal end and is movable between an unstressed state in which the distal end is in direct contact with each the fixed hook element, and a stressed state in which the distal end is spaced from the fixed hook element”.
However, Bayerlein, in the cooking hob space, teaches that different connectors are interchangeable (Bayerlein, ¶0036, “it may still be desirable in some examples to use one or more fasteners to fix the mounting tongues 62 to the chassis 12 after they are inserted within the apertures 64. For instance, one or more of the mounting tongues 62 can be fastened to the chassis 12 using threaded fasteners, rivets, welds, clips, hooks, adhesive, or some other fastening element.”). And Goldberg teaches a conventional hooking system, wherein the snap-in mechanism of at least one of the fasteners has a movable hook element (Goldberg, fig. 1, reproduced below, 38, ¶0032, gate member 38 is resilient) and a fixed hook element (34), wherein the movable hook element has a distal end and is movable between an unstressed state in which the distal end is in direct contact with each the fixed hook element, and a stressed state in which the distal end is spaced from the fixed hook element” (Goldberg, fig. 1, ¶0032, “gate member 38 are fabricated of a resilient material such as but not limited to rubber, plastic, or any other suitable resilient material as is well known in the art. A first end of gate member 38 contacts or is in close proximity to an end of said body member 32 when said gate 38 is in a closed position. In this embodiment a resilient attachment device is formed without a pivoting hinge. The gate member 38 simply deforms when pressure is applied and resiliently returns to its original position when pressure is released”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Hausgeraete with the teachings of Bayerlein and Goldberg,, to add in the “snap hook” of Goldberg into the “snap hook” of Hausgeraete (¶¶25-26, “the fastening means… is formed in a hook-like manner” and “the induction unit is then snapped into the fastening means”) in order use a conventional, interchangeable, technology (as taught in Bayerlein) when securing heating elements in order to make it easier for an operator to intuitively see and access the conventional looking snap hook and the heating element for quick removal for maintenance or otherwise (Hausgeraete itself has “quick release” tabs, however, his tabs are set up under the hob for dismantling and not immediately accessible nor is it intuitive how to work, Hausgeraete, ¶30), and this would be using conventional means (hooks) in a conventional method (to secure a substrate) yielding the predictable result that the device is indeed secured (see MPEP 2143A).
PNG
media_image2.png
548
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Bosch Siemens Hausgeraete (German Patent Publication DE102007032757A1) in view of Bayerlein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0292714) and Goldberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/ 0250386).
Regarding claim 4, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches a cooking hob, wherein the fixed hook element is arranged directly on a top side of the main body of the at least one fastener (Goldberg, fig. 1), wherein the moveable hook element (38) is connected to the top side of the main body of the at least one fastener via the flexible supporting arm (Goldberg, flexible hook arm 30 attached to 38, and this would have already been obvious in the combination above.)
Regarding claim 5, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach a cooking hob wherein each said fastener is formed as a single-piece part (Goldberg, fig. 1, can see it is one piece) and/or is made of plastics (¶0031, plastic).
Regarding claim 6, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teach a cooking hob wherein the hook element (Goldberg, Fig. 1, 66) being moveable into or towards the main body (Fig. 1, moving of flexible piece 38, moving towards main body 14) of the at least one fastener, the main body of the at least one fastener being formed as a pillar (structure 14 supporting the hooking structures).
Regarding claim 7, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a cooking hob wherein the moveable hook element is supported by a supporting arm (Goldberg, 32) which is connected to or arranged at the main body of the at least one fastener.
Regarding claim 21, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a cooking hob wherein the movable hook element is arranged above the fixed hook element (Goldberg, fig. 1, 38 is above 34; this would have been combined above).
Regarding claim 22, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a cooking hob wherein the fixed hook element is arranged closer to the bottom wall of the cooking hob than the movable hook element (Goldberg, fig. 1, 34 is closer to the bottom than 38).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Bosch Siemens Hausgeraete (German Patent Publication DE102007032757A1; herein “Hausgeraete”) in view of Bayerlein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0292714) and Goldberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/ 0250386) and further in view of White (U.S. Patent 5,841,109)
Regarding claim 3, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the fixed hook element (Goldberg, 34) t is arranged directly on the main body (14) of the at least one fastener and/or the moveable hook element (38) is connected to the main body thereof via a flexible supporting arm (32) but does not further teach a cooking hob wherein the snap-in mechanism of the at least one fastener is connectable or connected to a fixation hole of the heating element. The device of Goldberg would require a hole in the heating element to be snapped therein. And White teaches wherein the [] mechanism of the at least one fastener (30) is connectable or connected to a fixation hole (50) of the heating element. Thus, once substituting for a snap in mechanism such as in Goldberg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg, to add the fixation hole of White, in order to fix tightly to and through the heating element so that it is securely fixed to the fastening system, and to use a conventional snap-in type mechanism to achieve the predictable results of having elements releasably fixed together.
Regarding claim 8, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach a cooking hob, wherein said heating element being at least partially enclosed by a border with a plurality of fixing holes, wherein each said fixing hole is penetrated or penetrable by a screw and/or engageable or engaged with the snap-in mechanism of a respective one of the fasteners, and wherein a fixed hook element and/or a moveable hook element of each said fastener penetrates the associated fixing hole, when said fixing hole is engaged with the snap-in mechanism of the respective fastener. Hausgeraete teaches that it is by adhesive that the surrounds the snap in mechanisms that attaches them to the hob (Hausgeraete, ¶26). However, White teaches wherein said heating element being at least partially enclosed by a border with a plurality of fixing holes (White, 44), wherein each said fixing hole is penetrated or penetrable by a screw and/or engageable or engaged with the snap-in mechanism of a respective one of the fasteners (White, 30) , and wherein a fixed hook element and/or a moveable hook element of each said fastener penetrates the associated fixing hole (fig. 3), when said fixing hole is engaged with the snap-in mechanism of the respective fastener. It is also noted, as above, that Bayerlein teaches that different mounting methods, including “fastener rivets welds clips hooks, adhesive, or some other fastening element” (Bayerlein, ¶36) may be substituted for each other, as each produce the conventional result of mounting and adhering and fixing components together. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg with the teachings of White and Bayerlein, to have each snap fastener surrounded by a hole for securing the clip into, substituting screws or some other adhering method, in order to secure the fastening system in a conventional way achieving the expected result of fixing the fastening system to the hob, and also to allow it to be removable, via the screw, which is an advantage over the adhesive, where one has to break the adhesive if one desires to remove the fastener (of Hausgeraete, for instance)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Bosch Siemens Hausgeraete (German Patent Publication DE102007032757A1) in view of Bayerlein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0292714) and Goldberg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/ 0250386) and further in view of Kwag (U.S. Patent 8,592,734).
Regarding claim 9, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a cooking hob wherein at least one of said fasteners includes at least one electric connector connectable or connected to a complementary electric connector of the heating element. However, Kwag teaches wherein at least one of said fasteners (140) includes at least one electric connector (137) connectable or connected to a complementary electric connector of the heating element (Kwag, fig. 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg with the teachings of Kwag, to have wherein at least one of said fasteners includes at least one electric connector connectable or connected to a complementary electric connector of the heating element, in order to connect the electricity through a fastener, the fasteners already being used to mount the heating plate to the hob, so a separate mounting is not required, so only a few parts need to be removed if maintenance is required.
Regarding claim 10, Hausgeraete in view of Bayerlein and Goldberg and Kwag teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a cooking hob, wherein at least one of said fasteners (Kwag, 140) includes at least one socket (147) connectable or connected to a plug of the heating element and/or connected or wired with a power and/or a signal cable(s) connected or connectable to an electric or electronic module or component of the cooking hob (column 7 line 37, “power is applied to the tube heater”; this would have been combined in the combination above.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 and 23 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that Hausgeraete would not be able to be combinable with the teachings of Bayerlein and Goldberg, and that modifying Hausgeraete would destroy the intended operation of Hausgeraete’s fastener (Remarks, p. 4 of 8) and that Hausgeraete’s and Goldberg’s fastening devices are not interchangeable to replace one with the other (Remarks, pp 5-6 of 8) and indeed Examiner did not describe clearly how Hausgeraete would be modified to accommodate the teachings of the secondary references (Remarks, p. 6 of 8) and the rationale for such a modification to Hausgeraete, if any, would be non-obvious (Remarks, p. 7 of 8, and would rely on improper hindsight). However, It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that 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). Here, the secondary references teach 1) that there are multiple ways these snap mechanisms may work as a fastener in the hob art (Bayerlein, above), and 2) that such a fastener system as applicant claims is well known in the fastening art (Goldberg). Thus, the combination is proper and the invention as claimed is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously filed forms PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAWRENCE SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761