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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cover portion” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0061], 15 th line, replace “con” with “can” before “be”. In paragraph [0078], 6 th line, add “.” before “Note”. In paragraph [0085], 2 nd line, replace “23” with “230” after “outlet”. In paragraph [0087], 2 nd line, replace “23” with “230” after “outlet”. In paragraph [0116], 6 th line, replace “18” with “180” after “portion”. In paragraph [0124], 1 st line, replace “34” with “340” after “material”. In paragraph [0141], 4 th line, replace “13, 130” with “13” before “opposite”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 5 th line of claim 1, it is believed that “gas” should be added after “oxidant” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fuel cell stack side" bridging the 7 th and 8 th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side" in the 8 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opposite side" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the distal end" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first direction side" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first direction" bridging the 3 rd and 4 th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the opposite side" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first direction" bridging the 2 nd and 3 rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the distal end" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in the 7 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the center" in the 7 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the oxidant gas" in the 1 st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the normal direction" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the normal direction" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the main surface" bridging the 3 rd and 4 th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supply plate inlet side" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supply plate outlet side" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the normal direction" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the main surface" bridging the 3 rd and 4 th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the side" bridging the 2 nd and 3 rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first direction" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the flow" in the 8 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the reformer side" in the 9 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the center" in the 9 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first direction" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the flow" in the 8 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reformer side" in the 9 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the opposite side" in the 9 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the opposite side" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in the 4 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the location" bridging the 4 th and 5 th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fuel cell stack side" in the 5 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first direction" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the normal direction" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the main surface" in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first direction" bridging the 4 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the opposite side" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. 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 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0237795). Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 20 , Nakamura et al. disclose a fuel cell module of a fuel cell device (abstract; paragraphs [00 48]-[0072] ; and Figures 1 and 3-5 ), in which the fuel cell module (10) includes the following structural features: a fuel cell stack (cell stack (2 A )) arranged within a housing (1) – see paragraph s [0049] -[0051] ; and Figures 1 and 3-5 ; and an oxidant gas supply plate ( oxygen-containing gas introduction plate ( 3 )) that is arranged adjacent to the fuel cell stack (2 A ) within the housing (1) and that has an inner space for flowing an oxidant gas (through oxygen-containing gas flow channels (13, 14, 15) to be supplied to the fuel cell stack (2 A ) – see paragraph s [0059] - [006 6 ]; and Figures 1 and 3-5 , wherein the oxidant gas supply plate ( 3 ) is positioned separated away from an inner wall of the housing (1) on a first direction side so that a space of the oxidant gas supply plate ( 3 ) on a fuel cell stack side communicates with a space of the fuel cell stack (2A) on a side opposite to the fuel cell stack side; the oxidant gas supply plate has a surface facing the fuel cell stack (2 A ) and a surface on an opposite side of the fuel cell stack (2 A ) , both being connected directly or indirectly to the housing (1) – see paragraphs [0059] - [006 6 ]; and Figures 1 and 3-5 . Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Nakamura et al. disclose that an off-gas outlet (exhaust gas flow channels (16, 17, 18) ) of the fuel cell stack ( 2A ) is located flush with a distal end of the inner space of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) or on a first direction side of the inner space of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) in a first direction , including being located on an opposite side of a first direction than a distal end of the inner space of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) – see paragraphs [0060]-[006 6 ]; and Figures 3-5 . Regarding claim 4 , Nakamura et al. disclose that the oxidant gas supply plate (3) has a first plate portion and a second plate portion located opposite each other (at opposite ends thereof) , wherein the first plate portion has a supply plate inlet (3d) , the second plate portion has a supply plate outlet (3c) , and the supply plate inlet (3d) is provided in a vicinity of a center of the fuel cell stack (2A) in a stacking direction ( see paragraphs [0060]-[006 8 ]; and Figures 1 and 3-5 ) . Regarding claim 5 , Nakamura et al. disclose that an oxidant gas flows into the oxidant gas supply plate (3) from the supply plate inlet (3d) , flows in one direction within the oxidant gas supply plate (3) , then turns back and flows out from the supply plate outlet (3c) – see paragraphs [0060]-[0066]; and Figures 3-5. Regarding claim s 6 and 7 , Nakamura et al. disclose that the supply plate inlet (3d) and the supply plate outlet (3c) are located at different positions, when viewed from a normal direction of a main surface of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) , and the oxidant gas supply plate (3) has a heat-insulating portion (6, 7A, 7B) between the supply plate inlet (3d) and the supply plate outlet (3c) , when viewed from the normal direction of the main surface of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) , wherein the heat-insulating portion (6, 7A, 7B) is covered by a cover portion (see paragraphs [0051] and [0060]-[0066]; and Figures 1 and 3-5). Regarding claim 1 4 , Nakamura et al. disclose that a portion of the second plate portion facing the supply plate inlet (3d) is recessed to a side opposite to the first plate portion (see paragraphs [0060]-[0068]; and Figures 1 and 3-5). Regarding claim s 1 5 and 16 , Nakamura et al. disclose that a reformer (2C) is located in a first direction from the fuel cell stack (2 A ), the reformer (2C) having a reforming portion that generates, by performing water vapor reforming, a gas to be supplied to the fuel cell stack (2 A ) within the housing (1), and a vaporizing portion that is located in a second direction that intersects the first direction from the reforming portion and that vaporizes water to supply a water vapor to the reforming portion, and an exhaust gas lead-out portion (16, 17, 18) that causes, in a flow of an off-gas discharged from the fuel cell stack (2A) to a reformer side, the off-gas to flow toward a center of the housing (1) and toward an opposite side in the second direction (see paragraphs [0060]-[0066]; and Figures 3-5) . Regarding claim 17 , Nakamura et al. disclose a heat-insulating material (7B) on an opposite side of the fuel cell stack (2 A ) from the oxidant gas supply plate (3) , the heat-insulating material (7B) having a recessed portion (7e) formed in a vicinity of a location of the reformer (2C) in the first direction (see paragraph [0056]) , when viewed form a fuel cell stack side, the recessed portion (7e) extending along the second direction (see paragraph s [0051], [0055], and [0065] ; and Figures 3-5 ) . Regarding claim s 1 8 and 19 , Nakamura et al. disclose that in a first direction and a width direction perpendicular to a normal direction of a main surface of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) , a width of the inner space of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) on a first direction side would be larger than a width of the inner space of the oxidant gas supply plate (3) on an opposite side of the first direction, wherein the width of the inner space on the first direction side would be larger than the width of the fuel cell stack (2 A ), and a width of the inner space on the opposite side of the first direction is about the same as the width of the fuel cell stack (2 A ) – see paragraphs [0060]-[0066]; and Figures 3-5. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a fuel cell module that includes all structural features in the combination of independent claim 1 and claim 4, and further includes the following features: the oxidant gas supply plate has an isolating portion that is located at least between the supply plate inlet and the supply plate outlet, when viewed from a normal direction of a main surface of the oxidant gas supply plate, and that partially divides the inner space into an inner space on a supply plate inlet side and an inner space on a supply plate outlet side ( of dependent claim 8, from which claims 9 and 10 further depend ); and a flow regulating portion is provided, between the supply plate inlet and the supply plate outlet, in at least one of the first plate portion and the second plate portion, the flow regulating portion rising from the one to the other and at least extending, when viewed from a normal direction of a main surface of the oxidant gas supply plate, in a direction intersecting the direction from the supply plate inlet to the supply plate outlet ( of dependent claim 11, from which claims 12 and 13 further depend ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1178 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-430pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3458 . 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 P KERNS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 11, 2026