DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Amendments, filed on February 14, 2023 , have been entered in the above-identified application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Analysis The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and fourteen active dependent claims (claims 2 - 15). Examiner’s Comments The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Regarding the limitation(s) in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc. , 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that there are several 112 issues in the present claims and the Examiner has done their best at ‘interpreting’ these claims despite the 112 issues inorder to further prosection . Column and line ( or Paragraph Number ) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “ Figure 1, element 1 ” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words (37 CFR 1.72). See MPEP § 608.01(b). The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. 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. Claims 1 – 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The following 112(b) issues exist in these claims: Claim 1 requires ‘a plurality of plate-shaped heat conduction elements arranged between the cells of the energy storage device or energy converter ’ . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preamble of this claim is clear that it is directed to a ‘Tempering device’ and the only recitation of an energy storage device or energy converter is as an intended use without positively reciting that one of these devices/converters actually is present. This rejection can be overcome by amending claim 1 to positively recite “… plurality of cells, comprising: said energy storage device or energy converter ; a plurality of … ” Claim 1 recites that the tempering ribs are ‘thermally coupled’ to the heat conduction elements but it is unclear what that means? Moscow is ‘thermally coupled’ to Washington DC, since the air that flows around the world could reach both . Does ‘thermally coupled’ require physical coupling? Or is it just broadly reciting that air flow or conduction can impact both? For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as a broad limitation open to any means of ‘coupling’ between the two components, be it physical or just mutual air flow. This rejection can be overcome by acknowledging this interpretation or amending, as desired. Claim 1 recites “the plate-shaped tempering ribs”. There is insufficient antecedence as the ribs are not previously recited as ‘plate-shaped’ (only the heat conduction elements are recited as such). This rejection can be overcome by positively reciting “a plurality of plate-shaped tempering ribs arranged …”. Claim 2 recites the phrase “and preferably two or more of the …”, which is indefinite language similar to “such as”, “for example”, etc. because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this as “… air comprises one [and preferably two] or more of the following ….”. Claim 3 recites “the plurality of tempering ribs assigned to a side wall”. There is insufficient antecedence as no ribs have been specified as being ‘assigned to a side wall”. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “wherein [the] a plurality of tempering ribs assigned to a side wall …”. Claim 4 recit es “the resistor elements”. There is insufficient antecedence as ‘resistor elements’ are not into recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ the resistor elements to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 4 is also indefinite for reciting ‘preferably having one or more opening or recesses’ . The Examiner has interpreted this as “… and [preferably] optionally having one or more …”; i.e. these opening or recesses are _not_ required. Claim 5 recit es “the tempering air guiding element(s) ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not r ecited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 6 recit es “the tempering body or bodies ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 7 recit es “the means for influencing the tempering air flow ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 9 is indefinite for reciting ‘preferably greater … ’. The Examiner has interpreted this as “… and [preferably] optionally greater than …”; i.e. the different size is _not_ required. Claim 10 recit es “the tempering air guide ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 11 recit es “the tempering air guiding elements” . There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 11 is also indefinite for reciting “the spacer elements”. This is insufficient antecedence for this limitation. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “… in that [the] spacer elements are …”. Claim 11 is also indefinite since it recit es “the resistor elements ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 11 is also indefinite for reciting ‘higher heat transfer from …’ as it is unclear what is meant by ‘higher’ heat transfer? Quicker rate? Achieves a higher temperature? Has a higher k value? For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner deems that any ‘resistor element’ would necessarily result in a ‘higher’ heat transfer ( though resistor elements are not presently required ). Claim 11 is also indefinite since it recit es “the tempering bodies ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 11 is also indefinite for reciting ‘ better heat transfer from …’ as it is unclear what is meant by ‘ better ’ heat transfer? Quicker rate? Achieves a higher temperature? Has a higher k value? For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner deems that any ‘ tempering bodies ’ would necessarily result in ‘ better ’ heat transfer ( though tempering bodies elements are not presently required ). Claim 11 is also indefinite for reciting ‘ higher heat transfer surface’ as it is unclear what is meant by a ‘ higher heat transfer surface’ ? Quicker rate? Achieves a higher temperature? Has a higher k value? For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner deems that any ‘tempering bodies’ would necessarily result in ‘ higher ’ heat transfer surface ( though tempering bodies elements are not presently required ). Claim 13 recit es “the tempering channel ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this as reciting “wherein [the] a tempering channel is … “. Claim 13 recit es “the tempering air guiding elements ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation is not recited until claim 2. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this claim as depending from claim 2, but notes that nothing in the present claim language actually _requires_ this limitation to be selected from the Markush listing in claim 2 (i.e. these limitations may be moot as they merely further limit one Markush element without positively reciting that said Markush element must be present). Claim 1 5 recit es “the approximately cuboidal fuel cell ”. There is insufficient antecedence as this limitation. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this as reciting “ , forming [the] an approximately cuboidal … “. Claim 15 is also indefinite for reciting ‘preferably two, in particularly mutually opposite, or three or four side walls’ . The Examiner has interpreted this as _not_ required and has interpreted this entire limitation as simply “… at least one side wall is provided with a tempering device ….” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) T he claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (g)(1) D uring the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100( i ) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. Claim s 1 – 8 and 10 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by IDS reference Otsuka (U.S. Patent App. No. 2006/0105213 A1 ). The Examiner notes that this is reference D1 in the supplied Written Opinion and the following rejection substantially duplicates that as recited in the Written Opinion. Regarding claim 1 , Otsuka disclose s a fuel cell stack (70) comprising a plurality of planar heat-conducting elements (71) arranged between the cells ( Otsuka, Paragraphs 0011 – 0019 and 0075-0130, and F igures 3-12 ; this reads on a tempering device for tempering of a stacked energy storage device or energy converter formed by a plurality of cells, comprising a plurality of plate-shaped heat conduction elements arranged between the cells ) and a plurality of temperature control ribs (73) , arranged outside of the cells, for changing the flow direction of the temperature control air flow, wherein the temperature control ribs are thermally coupled to the heat- conducting elements, wherein a temperature control air volume flow can be applied to a plurality of the temperature control ribs such that a majority of the cells in a cell center can be approximately uniformly heated or cooled ( Paragraph 0091 ) , and wherein the means for influencing the temperature control air flow comprises additional temperature control ribs, the shape and/or arrangement of which differs from the shape and/or arrangement of the other temperature control ribs ( Otsuka, Paragraphs 0075-0130, and figures 3-12 ; this reads on a plurality of tempering ribs arranged outside the cells for changing a flow direction of a tempering air stream, the tempering ribs being thermally coupled to the heat conduction elements, and the tempering of the plate-shaped tempering ribs being effected by exposure to a tempering air stream by means of convention and/or via structural means by means of heat conduction ) . Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Otsuka discloses ribs and controlled air flow meeting the claimed limitations ; i.e. different shapes and sizes ( Abstract; Figures 3 and 15; and Paragraphs 0011 – 0019 ). Regarding claims 4 – 6, none of these limitations are required and since Otsuka discloses structurally defined ribs that meet the limitations of claim 2, other than these Markush elements, Otsuka reads on these claims. Regarding claim 7, Otsuka discloses ribs that are tapered, which necessarily results in the ‘air channel’ across said rib being tapered ( see Figures recited above ). Regarding claim 8, Otsuka discloses the claimed limitations ( see citations above ). Regarding claim 10, Otsuka discloses the claimed limitations ( see citations above, noting intake ports (14) and (15) and exhaust ports (11), (12), and (13); e.g. see Paragraph 0071 ). Regarding claim 11, Otsuka discloses embodiments meeting the claimed limitations ( Paragraph 0089 – 0096; controlled structural design of ribs; and/or Figures 16 – 18 and Paragraphs 0140 – 0158, for tapered bodies to control the air flow, resistance, uniformity of heat transfer, etc. ). Regarding claim 12, Otsuka discloses the plurality of inlets and outlets as well as the fact that the cells are maintained at uniform temperature, thereby meeting the claimed limitations ( see citations above ). Regarding claim 13, Otsuka disclose side-walls and housing, which necessarily form part of an air flow (tempering) “channel” as the air is explicitly taught to flow in through the inlet ports and out through the exhaust ports, etc., thereby meeting the claimed limitations ( see citations above ). Regarding claim 14, Otsuka disclose the plate-shaped elements. The term ‘sealing elements’ has no structurally defined meaning, so Otsuka necessarily meets the claimed limitations as they disclose a substantially identical fuel cell stack structure. Regarding claim 15, Otsuka discloses a stacked fuel cell meeting the claimed limitations and in a relatively cuboidal shape ( see citations above ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 . Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Otsuka as applied above. Otsuka is relied upon as described above. While Otsuka provides much guidance about the thickness of the ribs and, hence, heat conduction elements, Otsuka fail s to disclose exact values of the thickness to be used. However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the thickness of the conduction elements through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Otsuka regarding the desire to control the dimensions (thickness, width, etc.) of the ribs and conduction elements to control the rate of heat conduction to ensure uniformity in the fuel cell stack. In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler , 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller , 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET) . 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1291 . 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. /KEVIN M BERNATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 March 16, 2026