DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunz et al. (US 2019/0319279). Regarding claim 1 , Kunz discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and gas diffusion layers (GDL) (para 0046); and separator plate 100a (flow field plate) comprising plurality of lands 14 a ′, 14 b , 15 a and channels 16 arranged between these lands and delimited by these lands (para 0058; Fig. 3A /3B ) . More specifically, Kunz discloses the MEA 29 includes an ionomer (PEM) 26 and at least one catalyst layer, gas diffusion layers 27 arranged on both sides of the membrane electrode and separator plate s 200a , 200b of the bipolar plate 200 on opposite the MEA (para 0079; Fig. 6). The separator plate had plurality of first channels 16 and the widths of the channels change in the transition region 21 (Fig. 3A/3B; para 0068). With respect to “when a substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell ”, instant limitation is viewed as intended use. Fuel cells are commonly compressed and Kunz would be capable of applying a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate . For example, Kunz states d uring compression in the stack 2 , a uniform force introduction into the land sections 14 c , 15 c of the transition region 21 (para 0064) interpreted as also having a substantially uniform compressive force across the active area of the cell . Figure 3B to Kunz is provided below. Regarding claim 2 , Kunz discloses a landing-channel width ratio (LCWR) is substantially constant along said first channel length (Fig. 3A/3B, flow field 17 ) . Regarding claim 3 , Kunz discloses wherein a landing area fraction (LAF) on said first surface of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell (Fig. 3A/3B, flow field 17 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Kunz discloses wherein said second flow field plate has a first surface adjacent to said second gas diffusion layer, and said second flow field plate comprises a plurality of second channels formed in said first surface thereof, adjacent ones of said second channels separated by landings, said second channels having a second channel length, and said second channels having a width that varies along at least a portion of said second channel length, and wherein, when said substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said second gas diffusion layer and said landings of said second flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell (Fig. 6; para 0064) . Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni et al. ( Journal of Power Sources 426 (2019) 97–110 ). Regarding claim 1 , Kunz, directed to a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell , discloses applying a non-uniform compressive force across the entire MEA (abstract). 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, 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger et al. (US 2015/0180052) in view of Haile ( Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 5981–6000 ) and Barton et al. (US 6,190,793) . Regarding claim 1 , Leger teaches fuel cell channels and flow fields comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) disposed between two electrically conductive separator plates (flow field plates) (para 0004); a fuel cell anode flow field plate 200 having a plurality of flow channels 210 and rib s 224 ( landing s) (Fig. 2) and the channel width decreases along at least a portion of the channel length (abstract). Figure 2 to Leger is provided below. Leger teaches a “typical” polymer fuel cell (para 0004) , but does expressly teach (1) the recited structure of the MEA, electrodes, GDLs, second flow field plate, and catalyst layers with sufficient detail, and (2) when a substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell . (1) Haile, directed to fuel cell materials and components, teaches a typical fuel cell including an membrane electrode assembly comprising a proton exchange membrane interposed between a first electrode and a second electrode, a first electrode comprising a first gas diffusion layer and a first catalyst layer, and a second electrode comprising a second gas diffusion layer and a second catalyst layer, said first and second catalyst layers defining an active area of said unit cell ( partial Figs. 1 and 3b ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the above figures to Haile illustrate a common fuel cell of the recited structure. (2) With respect to “when a substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell ”, instant limitation is viewed as intended use. Fuel cells are commonly compressed. Barton, directed to an electrochemical fuel cell stack, teaches MEA 100 , a pair of flow field plates 200 , and end plate assemblies 20 and 30 with s pring plate 70 with integral spring arms 80 grip each end of tension member 60 (compression system) to apply a compressive force to fuel cell assemblies 50 of stack 10 and act as restraining members (Fig. 1) . T he resilient member is selected to provide a substantially uniform compressive force to the fuel cell assemblies, within an anticipated expansion and contraction limits for an operating fuel cell (col. 2, lines 33-36) and would be capable of applying a substantially uniform compressive force said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compress a fuel cell to enhance sealing and electrical contact between the surfaces of the separator plates and the MEAs, and sealing between adjacent fuel cell stack components (col. 2, lines 7-10). Regarding claim 2 , Leger teaches a landing-channel width ratio (LCWR) is substantially constant along said first channel length (Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 3 , Leger teaches wherein a landing area fraction (LAF) on said first surface of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell (Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 4 , Leger in view of Haile and Barton teach wherein said second flow field plate has a first surface adjacent to said second gas diffusion layer, and said second flow field plate comprises a plurality of second channels formed in said first surface thereof, adjacent ones of said second channels separated by landings, said second channels having a second channel length, and said second channels having a width that varies along at least a portion of said second channel length, and wherein, when said substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said second gas diffusion layer and said landings of said second flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell ( Leger Fig. 2, Haile Fig. 1, Barton Fig. 1 ) . Regarding claim 5 , Leger teaches wherein s aid width varies along the entire length of said first channels (Fig. 2). Regarding claim s 6 and 14 , Leger teaches said width decreases along at least said portion of said first channel length in a direction of reactant flow (Figs. 1B and 2) . Regarding claim s 7 and 15 , Leger teaches the channel width decreases along at least a portion of the channel length according to a natural exponential function (abstract) . Regarding claim s 8 and 16 , Leger teaches a trapezoidal anode flow field plate ( F ig. 2). Regarding claim 9 , Leger teaches fuel cell channels and flow fields comprising: a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) disposed between two electrically conductive separator plates (flow field plates) (para 0004); a fuel cell anode flow field plate 200 having a plurality of flow channels 210 and rib s 224 ( landing s) (Fig. 2) and the channel width decreases along at least a portion of the channel length (abstract). Leger teaches a “typical” polymer fuel cell (para 0004), but does expressly teach (1) the recited structure of the MEA, electrodes, GDLs, second flow field plate, and catalyst layers with sufficient detail, and (2) when a substantially uniform compressive force is applied to said unit cell to urge said first and second flow field plates toward one another, a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell . (1) Haile, directed to fuel cell materials and components, teaches a typical fuel cell including an membrane electrode assembly comprising a proton exchange membrane interposed between a first electrode and a second electrode, a first electrode comprising a first gas diffusion layer and a first catalyst layer, and a second electrode comprising a second gas diffusion layer and a second catalyst layer, said first and second catalyst layers defining an active area of said unit cell (partial Figs. 1 and 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the above figures to Haile illustrate a common fuel cell of the recited structure. (2) With respect to “ a compression system urging said first and second flow field plates toward one another and applying non-uniform compressive force across said active area of said unit cell, wherein a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell ”, w hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather t han function. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, Barton, directed to an electrochemical fuel cell stack, teaches MEA 100 , a pair of flow field plates 200 , and end plate assemblies 20 and 30 with s pring plate 70 with integral spring arms 80 grip each end of tension member 60 (compression system) to apply a compressive force to fuel cell assemblies 50 of stack 10 and act as restraining members (Fig. 1) . T he resilient member is selected to provide compressive force to the fuel cell assemblies, within an anticipated expansion and contraction limits for an operating fuel cell (col. 2, lines 33-36) and would be capable of urging said first and second flow field plates toward one another and applying non-uniform compressive force across said active area of said unit cell, wherein a contact pressure between said first gas diffusion layer and said landings of said first flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compress a fuel cell to enhance sealing and electrical contact between the surfaces of the separator plates and the MEAs, and sealing between adjacent fuel cell stack components (col. 2, lines 7-10). Regarding claim 10 , Leger teaches a landing-channel width ratio (LCWR) varies along said first channel length (Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 11 , Leger teaches wherein a landing area fraction (LAF) on said first surface of said first flow field plate is varies across said active area of said unit cell (Fig. 2) . Regarding claim 12 , Leger teaches wherein said first channels have a width that varies along at least a portion of said first channel length (abstract) . Regarding claim 13 , Leger in view of Haile and Barton teach said second flow field plate has a first surface adjacent to said second gas diffusion layer, and said second flow field plate comprises a plurality of second channels formed in said first surface thereof, adjacent ones of said second channels separated by landings, said second channels having a second channel length, and said second channels having a width that varies along at least a portion of said second channel length, wherein a contact pressure between said second gas diffusion layer and said landings of said second flow field plate is substantially uniform across said active area of said unit cell (Leger Fig. 2, Haile Figs. 1 and 3b, Barton Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 17 , Barton teach es wherein said fuel cell assembly comprises a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of said unit cells, and said compression system comprises a pair of end-plate assemblies 20 , said fuel cell stack interposed between said pair of end-plate assemblies, wherein at least one of said end-plate assemblies comprises a plurality of plate segments positioned side-by-side at one end of said fuel cell stack (Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 18 , Barton teaches wherein said fuel cell assembly comprises a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of said unit cells, and said compression system comprises a pair of end-plate assemblies, said fuel cell stack interposed between said pair of end-plate assemblies, at least one of said end-plate assemblies comprising a plurality of plate segments positioned side-by-side at one end of said fuel cell stack, wherein each of said plurality of plate segments comprises a spring set with a different force-displacement characteristic, each of said plate segments and its associated spring set exerting a different compressive force on said fuel cell stack (Fig. 1) . The resilient member may comprise mechanical springs, or a hydraulic or pneumatic piston, or spring plates, or pressure pads, or other resilient compressive devices or mechanisms. For example, one or more spring plates may be layered in the stack (col. 2, lines 36-39) . Regarding claim 1 9 , Barton teaches wherein said fuel cell assembly comprises a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of said unit cells, and said compression system comprises first and second end-plate assemblies and a first spring assembly and a second spring assembly positioned side-by-side and interposed between said first end-plate assembly and said fuel cell stack, said first spring assembly overlying a first portion of said active area of said unit cells and said second spring assembly overlying a second portion of said active area of said unit cells, wherein said first spring assembly has a different force-displacement characteristic from said second spring assembly (Fig. 1) . For example, one or more spring plates may be layered in the stack (col. 2, lines 36-39) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5780 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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 . /CARLOS BARCENA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723