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 of Species III, Figs. 6A, 6B, claims 1-6, 8-23, 25, and 26 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because A pplicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Further, it is noted that claim 8 was identified as elected, but depends from the non-elected claim 7. Accordingly, said claim 8 will be also withdrawn from further consideration on the merits as drawn to the non-elected species. Therefore, the nonelected claims 7, 8, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration on the merits as drawn to the non-elected species. The Office action on elected claims 1-6, 9-23, 25, and 26 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5, 6, 14, 15, 22, 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. C laims 5, 6, 14, 15, 22, and 2 3, 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 fins” formed on the “insulating component” and “at least a portion of the first electrode” (i.e., “interdigitated”). However, said “interdigitation” only makes sense when “fingers” formed on said electrodes and are positively set forth ( i.e., the fingers are interdigitated with fins). Accordingly, the omitted elements are: “fingers” that are formed on the first and/or the second electrodes. 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, claim 6 recites the limitation “the portion of the insulating component and at least a portion of the first electrode are interdigitated ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim, since the term “interdigitated” only makes sense when the “fins” and “fingers” are present. It appears that the claim should depend from claim 5, in which at least the “fins” are positively set forth (i.e., analogously to claim 23 which depends from claim 22, or to claim 15 which depends from claim 14). Accordingly, for examination purposes the Office will interpret claim 6 as depending from claim 5. 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. Claim s 1- 6 , 10-16, 18-2 3 , and 26 , 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 and 10, Alley discloses a thermal fuse (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode ( 18, 22 ) ; a second electrode (1 2, 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) . Regarding claim 18, Alley discloses a thermal fuse (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode (1 8, 22 ) ; a second electrode (1 2, 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 ) . 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 (1 8, 22 ) and the second electrode (1 2, 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 (1 8, 22 ) in electrical contact with the second electrode (1 2, 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 5, 6, 14, 15, 22, and 23, as best understood, Alley discloses one or more fins (see annotated Fig. 1 below) extend radially outward from a body of the insulating component (16) , and wherein at least a portion (17) of the first electrode (18, 22) and/or (a portion (17) of) the second electrode (12, 18) is engaged with the one or more fins , wherein at least a portion of the insulating component (16) and at least a portion of the first electrode are interdigitated (see annotated Fig. 1 below) . Examiner’s Note : regarding method claims 10-1 5 , 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. 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. Claim s 9, 17, and 25, as best understood, a re 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 repeat s 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. Conclusion The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various thermally actuated electrical switches with thermally expandable actuating components separating electrical contacts. Furthermore , the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the US 6,583,711 to Yang which could have been also used for statutory rejections of the at least independent claims (see Figs. 1-4 clearly depicting: a first and second electrode s (11, 21, 22) and an insulating component (30) operatively coupled to the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the insulating component is electrically insulating, 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 (Fig. 2) , 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 (Fig. 4)). Furthermore, the following references could have been also used for statutory rejections of the at least independent claims: US 2,022,907 (Figs. 1-5), US 7,755,899 (Figs. 1-5c), US 2021 / 0375945 (Figs. 1-2), and US 9,748,063 (Figs. 1-12). Applicant is advised to consider all of the foregoing possible rejections when amending the claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2047 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm . 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 Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Anatoly Vortman/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2835