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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 4/15/2026 to the non-final Office action of 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on elected and newly added claims 1-6, 9-23, and 25-29 follows.
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 6, 15, and 23, are 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.
Claims 6, 15, and 23, are incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims recite interconnection between the “one or more fingers” of the “first electrode” and the “at least a portion of the insulating component” (i.e., “interdigitated”). However, said “interdigitation” only makes sense when “fins” formed on said insulating component are also recited (i.e., the fingers are interdigitated with fins). Accordingly, the omitted elements are: “fins” formed on the insulating component.
Furthermore, the aforementioned claims are also incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between the “fins” and the “fingers”.
Furthermore, the limitation “one or more fingers” lacks proper antecedent basis, since said “fingers” have not been properly positively set forth.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims.
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 1-6, 10-16, 18-23, and 26-29, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,743,993 to Alley et al. (hereafter “Alley”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10, and 14, Alley discloses a thermal fuse (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode (18, 22); a second electrode (12, 14); and an insulating component (16) operatively coupled to the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the insulating component is electrically insulating (col. 3, l. 53 - col. 5, l. 2), wherein the insulating component is configured to place the first electrode in electrical contact with the second electrode when an operating temperature of the thermal fuse is less than a threshold temperature, and wherein the insulating component is configured to space apart the first electrode from the second electrode when the operating temperature is greater than the threshold temperature (see “110 degrees”; col. 1, ll. 49-53; col. 3, l. 53 – col. 4, l. 15; col. 5, ll. 10-29), and wherein one or more fins extend radially outward from a central longitudinal axis of a body of the insulating component (16), and wherein at least a portion (17) of the first electrode (18, 22) and/or the second electrode (18, 22) is engaged with the one or more fins (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Examiner’s Note: the insulating component (16) (including its fins) is a three-dimensional cylindrical body (col. 2, ll. 53-55). Therefore, said insulating component (16) (including its fins) extends longitudinally along its central longitudinal axis and radially outward from said longitudinal axis.
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Alley discloses a thermal fuse (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode (18, 22); a second electrode (12, 14) separate from the first electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are selectively movable between an extended configuration in which the first electrode and the second electrode are spaced apart and a contracted configuration in which the first electrode and the second electrode are in electrical contact (col. 5, ll. 10-29); and an insulating component (16) disposed at least partially between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the insulating component is electrically insulating (col. 3, l. 53 - col. 5, l. 2), and wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the insulating component is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least one selected from the first electrode and the second electrode (col. 5, ll. 11-25), and wherein one or more fins extend radially outward from a central longitudinal axis of a body of the insulating component (16), and wherein at least a portion (17) of the first electrode (18, 22) and/or the second electrode (18, 22) is engaged with the one or more fins (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Examiner’s Note: the insulating component (16) (including its fins) is a three-dimensional cylindrical body (col. 2, ll. 53-55). Therefore, said insulating component (16) (including its fins) extends longitudinally along its central longitudinal axis and radially outward from said longitudinal axis.
See next page →
PNG
media_image1.png
418
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 26, Alley discloses that a coefficient of thermal expansion of the insulating component (16) is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least one selected from the first electrode and the second electrode (col. 5, ll. 11-25).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20, Alley discloses that the insulating component (16) is configured to expand in an axial direction to space apart the first electrode (18, 22) and the second electrode (12, 14) when the operating temperature is greater than the threshold temperature (see “110 degrees”; col. 1, ll. 49-53; col. 3, l. 53 – col. 4, l. 15; col. 5, ll. 10-29).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 21, Alley discloses that the insulating component (16) is configured to contract in an axial direction to place the first electrode (18, 22) in electrical contact with the second electrode (12, 14) when the operating temperature is less than the threshold temperature (col. 5, ll. 16-21).
Regarding claim 16, Alley discloses biasing the first electrode (18, 22) towards the second electrode (12, 14) (by the spring (19)).
Regarding claim 19, Alley discloses that the insulating component (16) is configured to place the first electrode (18, 22) in electrical contact with the second electrode (12, 14) when an operating temperature of the thermal fuse is less than a threshold temperature, and wherein the insulating component is configured to space apart the first electrode (18, 22) from the second electrode (12, 14) when the operating temperature is greater than the threshold temperature (see “110 degrees”; col. 1, ll. 49-53; col. 3, l. 53 - col. 4, l. 15; col. 5, ll. 10-29).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 23, as best understood, Alley discloses that at least a portion of the insulating component (16) and one or more fingers of the first electrode (18, 22) are interdigitated (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
See next page →
PNG
media_image3.png
542
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 10-15, and 16, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of operating / using of the device, wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure and functionality recited in the corresponding apparatus claims, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Alley means that the general method of operating / using such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method recited in the claims is inherently necessitated by the structure of the device of Alley.
Regarding claims 27-29, Alley discloses that the body of the insulating component (16) is annular or cylindrical (col. 2, ll. 53-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 9, 17, and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Alley.
Regarding claims 9, 17, and 25, Alley discloses that the insulating component (16) comprises a conductive material coated with an electrically insulating material (col. 5, l. 59 – col. 6, l. 3).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known material(s) for making of the insulating component of Alley, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired thermal, mechanical, and electrical characteristics of the thermal fuse (e.g., opening characteristic, etc.), while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 17, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of operating / using of the device, wherein the claim essentially repeats the structure and functionality recited in the corresponding apparatus claim, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Alley means that the general method of operating / using such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method recited in the claim is inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of Alley.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments f have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, since the rejection has been adjusted to address the amended claims as explained above in the body of the rejection. Furter, the gist of the arguments is that, allegedly, in Alley “[e]ven if for the sake of argument the right curved portion of the actuator 16 was considered to teach one or more fins, such one or more fins would fail to teach one or more fins extending outward from a central longitudinal axis of a body of the insulating component. Rather, the right curved portion of the actuator 16 extends parallel to, not outward from, a central longitudinal axis of the device.”
In response, the Office would like to reiterate that the insulating component (16) (including its fins) is a three-dimensional cylindrical body (col. 2, ll. 53-55). Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s position, said insulating component (16) (including its fins) extends longitudinally along its central longitudinal axis and radially outward from said longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
462
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, the rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
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 Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights