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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 06/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/05/2026.
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, 5-9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2992315 (McDonnold hereinafter) in view of US 5633550 (Mutz hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, McDonnold teaches a stovetop with a removable cover that discloses a chassis (Chassis 38 in Figure 1); a console coupled to the chassis for operating the cooking appliance (Console 10 in Figure 1); and a clip coupling the console to the chassis (Clip formed by 58 and 48 in Figures 1 and 2).
McDonnold is silent with respect that the clip having a body including a spring finger and an upper contact surface that extends away from the chassis; wherein the spring finger secures the console against the chassis between the spring finger and the chassis by a spring force.
However, Mutz teaches an appliance retaining system that discloses a clip (Figures 5-7 with clip 1) having a body including a spring finger (Spring finger “A” of the annotated Figure 5 below) and an upper contact surface that extends away from the chassis (Upper contact “B” in the annotated Figure 5 below); wherein the spring finger secures the console against the chassis between the spring finger and the chassis by a spring force (Evident from Figures 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mounting clip of McDonnold with the clip of Mutz to allow for an easy and secure attachment to be formed between the two components.
Regarding claim 2, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the clip further comprises a chassis attachment portion for coupling the clip to the chassis (Mutz Figures 1 and 5 with the chassis attachment portion at hole for a screw 16).
Regarding claim 3, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the spring finger is offset from the chassis attachment portion by an angle (Evident from Figure 5 of Mutz).
Regarding claim 5, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the clip further comprises a center wall spacing the chassis attachment portion from the spring finger (Center wall along 2 of Mutz Figures 1 and 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 5 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the clip further comprises a first attachment region defined between the center wall and the chassis attachment portion (First attachment region being the region abutting the chassis for the screw to hold the clip and below the web 17), and wherein the chassis is received within the first attachment region when the clip is coupled to the chassis (Evident from Figures 1 and 5-7 of Mutz).
Regarding claim 7, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 6 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the clip further comprises a second attachment region defined between the center wall and the spring finger (Internal area within clip 1 at each clamping leg 3 of Mutz), and wherein the console is received within the second attachment region when the clip is coupled to the console (Evident from Figures 5-7 of Mutz).
Regarding claim 8, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the spring finger is shaped such that a force required to attach the console to the clip is lesser than a force required to remove the console from the clip (The Examiner is interpreting the assembly and disassembly shown in Figures 5-7 of Mutz to teach that the assembly step requires less force than a disassembly step since the disassembly step requires a lever/tool).
Regarding claim 9, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the console further comprises a protrusion sized to be received by the spring finger (Figures 5 and 6 of Mutz shows the protrusion 9/10/11 being received)
Regarding claim 11, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose a pair of extensions spacing the spring finger from a remainder of the body (Mutz Figures 1-3 show unlabeled raised extensions on either side of the bolt hole 16).
Regarding claim 14, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose a pair of wings extending from the body to define a span among the pair of wings (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Mutz, the legs 3 and 3’ read on the claimed wings).
Regarding claim 15, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of McDonnold and Mutz would further disclose that the chassis includes a depression having a width that is less than the span among the pair of wings (Depression being the cut-out in Mutz Figures 1-3 immediately below the hole 16).
Claims 4, 10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2992315 (McDonnold) in view of US 5633550 (Mutz) and further in view of US 2328757 (Tinnerman hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect to the angle is greater than or equal to 1-degree and less than or equal to 25-degrees.
However, Tinnerman teaches a retaining clip that discloses an angle between a chassis attachment portion and a spring finger that is greater than or equal to 1-degree and less than or equal to 25-degrees (Figure 2 with the angle formed by the equivalent spring finger end 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spring finger angle of McDonnold/Mutz with the teachings of Tinnerman to minimize the extending arm of the spring finger and requiring less material to form.
Regarding claim 10, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 9 but are silent with respect that the protrusion meets the spring finger at a lap joint.
However, Tinnerman teaches a spring clip mounting fastener that discloses a protrusion (Protrusion 22 in Figures 1-6), and that the protrusion meets the spring finger at a lap joint (Figure 6 shows the protrusion being received at a lap joint). The resultant combination would change the interaction of Mutz’ protrusion to be in a lap joint connection when assembled in a manner similar to Figure 6 of Tinnerman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusion’s connection method of McDonnold and Mutz with the lap joint of Tinnerman to require a lower profile while increasing surface area for friction.
Regarding claim 16, McDonnold teaches a stovetop with a removable cover that discloses a chassis for a cooking appliance (Chassis 38 in Figure 1); a console coupled to the chassis for operating the cooking appliance (Console 10 in Figure 1); and a clip comprising a body coupling the console to the chassis (Clip formed by 58 and 48 in Figures 1 and 2).
McDonnold is silent with respect that the clip comprises a spring finger portion including a spring finger having an upper contact surface that is arranged to extend away from the chassis; and an extension spacing the spring finger portion from a remainder of the body.
However, Mutz teaches an appliance retaining system that discloses a clip (Figures 5-7 with clip 1) having a body including a spring finger (Spring finger “A” of the annotated Figure 5 below) and an upper contact surface that extends away from the chassis (Upper contact “B” in the annotated Figure 5 below); and an extension spacing the spring finger portion from a remainder of the body (Extension being the lower end of the legs 3 and 3’ of Mutz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mounting clip of McDonnold with the clip of Mutz to allow for an easy and secure attachment to be formed between the two components.
McDonnold, per Mutz is silent with respect that the extension is arranged at an angle relative to the remainder of the body that is greater than or equal to 1-degree and less than or equal to 45-degrees.
However, Tinnerman teaches a retaining clip that discloses an angle between a chassis attachment portion and a spring finger with an angle relative to the remainder of the body that is greater than or equal to 1-degree and less than or equal to 45-degrees (Figure 2 with the angle formed by the equivalent spring finger end 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spring finger angle of McDonnold/Mutz with the teachings of Tinnerman to minimize the extending arm of the spring finger and requiring less material to form
Regarding claim 17, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of McDonnold, Mutz, and Tinnerman would further disclose that the extension is one of a pair of extensions spacing the spring finger portion from the remainder of the body, defining an opening between the pair of extensions (Evident from Figure 1 of Mutz).
Regarding claim 18, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 16 where the combination of McDonnold, Mutz, and Tinnerman would further disclose that the body further comprises a chassis attachment portion (Figures 1 and 5 of Mutz shows that the body has the chassis attachment point at hole 16 for a screw).
Regarding claim 19, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 where the combination of McDonnold, Mutz, and Tinnerman would further disclose that the clip further comprises a center wall spacing the chassis attachment portion from the spring finger portion (Figure 1 of Mutz shows the center wall of featuring the hole 16 which is spaced from each of the spring fingers of Mutz).
Regarding claim 20, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 19 where the combination of McDonnold, Mutz, and Tinnerman would further disclose that the center wall meets each of the chassis attachment portion and the spring finger portion at a curved junction to define a first attachment region between the center wall and the spring finger portion (Curve in the lower surface of 3 between the center wall of Mutz and the spring fingers of Mutz) and a second attachment region between the center wall and the chassis attachment portion (Second region below the web 17 of Mutz).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2992315 (McDonnold) in view of US 5633550 (Mutz) and further in view of US 2009/0120927 (Arnold hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12,McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to an alignment tab extending perpendicular from the body.
However, Arnold teaches a fastening element that discloses an alignment tab extending perpendicular from the body (Figures 3 and 4 with alignment tab 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of McDonnold and Mutz with the alignment tab of Arnold to increase the ease of assembly while allowing for only a specific mounting alignment to occur.
Regarding claim 13, McDonnold’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of McDonnold, Mutz, and Arnold would further disclose that the chassis further comprises a slot receiving the alignment tab when the clip is coupled to the chassis (Resultant combination for the chassis of McDonnold to have an area that receives the alignment tab of Arnold).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights