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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 8/7/23. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. 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 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021118101 A (JP’101) in view of JP 4277715 B2 (JP’715). As to Claim 1: JP’101 discloses : a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (relates to an adhesive structure for a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (single cell includes a hard resin frame member 10, a membrane electrode assembly 20 (EGA), and a separator 30 ( pp.1–2)) by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40, which is a hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin ( p.3)) between an EGA (MEA 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (sandwiched between jigs and heated to melt the adhesive to bond the components ( p.4)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates, (2) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion formed between the EGA and the cell frame, and (3) evaluating adhesion quality of the adhesion portion based on the shape of the polymer particulates. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state between a rubber and an adherend comprising providing an adhesive containing an X-ray detection substance (e.g., a zinc compound) ( pp.1–2), imaging the shape of the substance in the internal state of the bond by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer (irradiated from the side surface parallel to the structure) to obtain a detection image ( p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., determining if the bond is appropriate, cracked, or separated) based on the shape (e.g., whether the detection image is a straight line, curved, or has a change in line thickness) of the detection image of the substance in the adhesive ( p.3). JP’101 and JP’715 are analogous arts because both references are directed to the field of adhesive bonding of structural components and the common problem of ensuring the integrity and quality of the bond line. Specifically, JP’101 addresses the assembly of fuel cell components where sealing is critical to performance ( p.1), and JP’715 provides a non-destructive radiographic inspection method specifically designed to evaluate the internal state of an adhesive bond ( p.1). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates (such as spacer beads often utilized in fuel cell manufacturing to maintain constant thickness during bonding) in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to pass X-rays through the fuel cell adhesion portion to image and evaluate the shape of those particulates. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality of critical seals between the EGA and the cell frame, thereby preventing leaks and ensuring product durability without the need for destructive testing. Using polymer particulates rather than the metallic compounds of JP’715 is a predictable choice to ensure material compatibility with the existing polymer components of the fuel cell. As to Claim 5: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (discloses an adhesive structure for a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 ( p.3)) between an EGA (membrane electrode assembly 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10 ( pp.1–2)) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (heated while sandwiched between jigs to melt the adhesive of the adhesive sheet 40 to bond the parts ( p.4)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates, (2) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion formed between the EGA and the cell frame, (3) evaluating adhesion quality of the adhesion portion based on the shape of the polymer particulates, and (4) that evaluating the adhesion quality comprises a first evaluation step of evaluating whether a difference between a maximum particle diameter and a minimum particle diameter among the polymer particulates imaged satisfies a first criterion, and a second evaluation step of evaluating whether a difference between an average particle diameter of the polymer particulates imaged and an average particle diameter of the polymer particulates provided in the adhesive satisfies a second criterion. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an X-ray detection substance (e.g., zinc compound) ( pp.1–2), imaging the shape of the detection substance in the bond by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer (irradiated from the side surface along the adhesive layer to obtain a detection image ( p.2)), and evaluating the adhesion quality based on the “change in the thickness of the line” (morphology/shape) of the detection image obtained via X-ray ( p.3). Evaluating the “change in the thickness” of a linear detection image representing a marker inherently involves evaluating variations in the width or diameter of that marker, such as measuring differences between maximum and minimum imaged dimensions to detect local bond failures or comparing the compressed imaged thickness (diameter) to the original thickness to verify uniform bonding pressure ( p.3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to evaluate the adhesion quality by quantifying the “change in thickness” taught by JP’715 through measuring maximum/minimum diameter differences and changes in average diameter relative to the initial state. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a precise, non-destructive, and quantitative way to verify that the thermocompression process in the fuel cell assembly achieved the correct seal thickness and uniformity, thereby preventing gas leaks and ensuring product durability without the need for destructive testing. Using polymer particulates (standard spacers/fillers) rather than the metallic markers of JP’715 is a predictable material choice to ensure chemical and electrical compatibility with the sensitive polymer membrane and frame of the fuel cell stack. As to Claim 6: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (relates to an adhesive structure for a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly by applying an adhesive between an EGA and a cell frame and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (single cell includes a hard resin frame member 10, an MEA 20 (EGA), and a separator 30 bonded by an adhesive sheet 40 ( pp.1–2), which is a hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin ( p.3) and is heated while sandwiched between jigs to melt the adhesive and bond the parts ( p.4)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates, (2) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion formed between the EGA and the cell frame, (3) evaluating adhesion quality of the adhesion portion based on the shape of the polymer particulates, (4) evaluation steps based on a difference between a maximum and minimum particle diameter satisfying a first criterion and a difference between an average imaged diameter and a provided average diameter satisfying a second criterion, and (5) that the second evaluation step is performed when the first evaluation step is satisfied. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a structure by passing X-rays through an adhesive containing detection markers to obtain a detection image ( p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality based on the “degree of change in line thickness” and “curve state” (shape) of the markers in the resulting image ( p.3). Evaluating “line thickness” in a radiographic image corresponds to measuring the diameter of the markers within the bond line ( p.3). Furthermore, JP’715 teaches a logical evaluation sequence: determining the state of the detection image (e.g., whether the detection image is straight, curved, or exhibits thickness variation) to identify appropriate or inappropriate bonding conditions ( p.3). This teaching establishes a procedural evaluation in which the morphology of the detected image is assessed to determine bonding quality. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates (standard spacers) in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to perform the quality evaluation in the specific order recited in Claim 6. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a structured, non-destructive quality control process that evaluates bonding conditions based on the morphology of the detected image, thereby enabling identification of bonding defects and ensuring manufacturing quality. Using polymer particulates rather than the metallic markers of JP’715 is a predictable choice to ensure compatibility with the sensitive polymer components and electrochemical environment of the fuel cell. As to Claim 7: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (discloses an adhesive structure and assembly for a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (single cell includes a hard resin frame member 10 and a membrane electrode assembly 20 ( pp.1–2)) by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 ( p.3)) between an EGA (MEA 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (bonding the MEA 20 to the frame member 10 by heating the adhesive sheet 40 while sandwiched between jigs ( p.4)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates to serve as markers, (2) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion formed between the EGA and the cell frame, (3) evaluating adhesion quality based on the shape of the particulates according to first and second criteria involving particle diameters, and (4) that when X-rays are radiated onto a lateral surface of the assembly, the evaluation is based on a short-axis diameter of the polymer particulates. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an X-ray detection substance (e.g., zinc compound) ( pp.1–2), obtaining a detection image by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer ( p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., determining proper or inappropriate presence state) based on the shape of the detection image ( p.3). Crucially, JP’715 teaches that X-rays are irradiated along the adhesive layer from the side surface of the structure to obtain a linear detection image ( p.2), and that the adhesion state is inspected based on a change in the thickness of the line ( p.3). Thus, JP’715 teaches evaluating bonding conditions based on the morphology of the detected image obtained via lateral irradiation. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates (such as common plastic spacer beads used to maintain gap thickness) in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to pass X-rays through the assembly from a lateral surface to evaluate the quality based on the morphology (line thickness) of the detection image as taught by JP’715. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify that the thermocompression process in the fuel cell stack achieved uniform and sufficient bonding, thereby preventing gas leaks and ensuring structural durability without damaging the electricity-generating components. Using polymer particulates rather than the metallic markers of JP’715 is a predictable material choice to ensure chemical compatibility with the sensitive electrolyte membrane and avoid electrical issues in the fuel cell environment. As to Claim 8: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (discloses an adhesive structure and assembly for fuel cell stacks ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 ( p.3)) between an EGA (membrane electrode assembly 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10 ( pp.1–2)) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (bonding the MEA 20 to the frame member 10 by heating the adhesive sheet 40 while being sandwiched between an upper and lower jig ( p.4)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) mixing polymer particulates in the adhesive to serve as markers, (2) imaging the shape of the polymer particulates by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion, (3) evaluating quality based on the shape satisfying first and second criteria involving diameter differences, and (4) that when X-rays are radiated onto an upper or lower surface of the assembly, the evaluation is based on a long-axis diameter of the polymer particulates. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an X-ray detection substance (e.g., zinc compound) ( pp.1–2), obtaining a detection image by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer ( p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., proper vs. inappropriate presence) based on the shape and “change in thickness” of the detection image ( p.3). JP’715 further teaches radiating X-rays along the adhesive layer from the side surface of the structure to obtain a detection image indicative of the internal adhesive state ( p.2), and evaluating bonding conditions based on the morphology of that image ( p.3). Thus, JP’715 establishes the use of radiographic imaging of internal markers within an adhesive layer to assess bonding quality. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates (such as standard plastic spacer beads) in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to pass X-rays through the upper or lower surface of the fuel cell assembly to image and evaluate the quality based on the morphology of the detected image. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a comprehensive, non-destructive verification of seal quality in a fuel cell stack, thereby ensuring bonding integrity without destructive testing. Using polymer particulates is a predictable choice to avoid the use of metallic additives that might adversely affect compatibility with polymer-based components in the fuel cell assembly. As to Claim 9: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (relates to an adhesive structure for a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (single cell includes a hard resin frame member 10, a membrane electrode assembly 20 (EGA), and a separator 30 ( pp.1–2)) by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40, which is a hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin ( p.3)) between an EGA (MEA 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (sandwiched between jigs and heated to melt the adhesive to bond the components ( p.4)); and wherein the adhesive does not comprise a metallic additive (JP’101 discloses the adhesive sheet as a thermoplastic resin-based adhesive without disclosure of metallic additives ( p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates, (2) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion formed between the EGA and the cell frame, and (3) evaluating adhesion quality of the adhesion portion based on the shape of the polymer particulates. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an X-ray detection substance ( pp.1–2), imaging the shape of the substance by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer ( p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., determining if the bond is proper or cracked) based on the shape (e.g., whether the detection image is a straight line, curved, or has a change in line thickness) of the detection image of the substance in the adhesive ( p.3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and then to pass X-rays through the fuel cell adhesion portion to image and evaluate the shape of those particulates. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality of critical seals between the EGA and the cell frame, thereby preventing leaks and ensuring product durability without the need for destructive testing. Using polymer particulates rather than the metallic compounds used in some embodiments of JP’715 is a predictable choice to ensure material compatibility with the existing polymer components of the fuel cell and to maintain a resin-based adhesive system consistent with JP’101. As to Claim 10: JP’101 discloses : an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)) comprising: an EGA comprising a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a gas diffusion layer (GDL) (discloses a “membrane electrode gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA) in which gas diffusion layers are bonded to both sides of the MEA” ( p.2)); a cell frame (frame member 10) comprising a polymer resin (made of “hard resin” ( pp.1–2)); and an adhesion portion (adhesive sheet 40) bonding the EGA (MEA 20) and the cell frame (frame member 10) to each other ( p.3); wherein the adhesion portion comprises an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” ( p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose that the adhesion portion comprises polymer particulates mixed with the adhesive. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an “X-ray detection substance” (e.g., a zinc compound) capable of detecting the adhesive state in X-rays ( pp.1–2). JP’715 further teaches that mixing such detection substances into the adhesive enables obtaining a radiographic “detection image” to “check existence status” and identify defects such as cracks or separation within the adhesive layer ( pp.2–3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers/detection substance taught by JP’715. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality and distribution of critical internal seals between the EGA and the cell frame in the fuel cell of JP’101, thereby ensuring product durability and preventing gas leaks without damaging the cell components. Selecting polymer particulates rather than the metallic zinc markers used in JP’715 is a predictable variation of the detection substance to maintain compatibility with the polymer-based components of the fuel cell assembly. As to Claim 11: JP’101 discloses an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)) comprising: an EGA comprising a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a gas diffusion layer (GDL) (discloses a “membrane electrode gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA)” in which gas diffusion layers are bonded to both sides of the MEA ( p.2)); a cell frame (frame member 10) comprising a polymer resin (made of “hard resin” ( pp.1–2)); and an adhesion portion (adhesive sheet 40) bonding the EGA (MEA 20) and the cell frame (frame member 10) to each other ( p.3); wherein the adhesive comprises a film-type adhesive sheet or a hot-melt adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” ( p.3)). As to Claim 12: JP’101 discloses an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)) comprising: an EGA comprising a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a gas diffusion layer (discloses a “membrane electrode gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA)” in which gas diffusion layers are bonded to both sides of the MEA ( p.2)); a cell frame (frame member 10) comprising a polymer resin (made of “hard resin” ( pp.1–2)); and an adhesion portion (adhesive sheet 40) bonding the EGA (MEA 20) and the cell frame (frame member 10) to each other ( p.3); wherein the adhesion portion comprises an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” ( p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose that the adhesion portion comprises polymer particulates mixed with the adhesive, or that the polymer particulates comprise polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polycarbonate (PC), cycloolefin copolymer (COC), or combinations thereof. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an “X-ray detection substance” (e.g., discrete markers or particulates) capable of detecting the adhesive state in X-rays ( pp.1–2). The reference teaches that mixing these detectable particulates into the adhesive allows for a radiographic “detection image” to be obtained to “check existence status” and identify internal bond defects such as cracks or separation ( pp.2–3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the hot-melt adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers/detection substance taught by JP’715. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality and distribution of critical internal seals between the EGA and the cell frame in the fuel cell assembly of JP’101, thereby ensuring product durability and preventing gas leaks without damaging the cell components. As to Claim 13: JP’101 discloses an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)) comprising: an EGA comprising a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a gas diffusion layer (discloses a “membrane electrode gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA)” in which gas diffusion layers are bonded to both sides of the MEA ( p.2)); a cell frame (frame member 10) comprising a polymer resin (made of “hard resin” ( pp.1–2)); and an adhesion portion (adhesive sheet 40) bonding the EGA (MEA 20) and the cell frame (frame member 10) to each other ( p.3); wherein the adhesion portion comprises an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” ( p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesion portion comprises polymer particulates mixed with the adhesive and (2) that the polymer particulates in the adhesion portion have a compressed shape when viewed in cross-section. JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an “X-ray detection substance” (discrete markers or particulates) ( pp.1–2). JP’715 further teaches evaluating the quality of the bond based on the “degree of change in line thickness” and the “curved state” (shape) of the detection image of the markers ( p.3), which reflects deformation or variation of the markers within the adhesive layer when subjected to bonding conditions. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality and uniformity of the internal seals in the fuel cell assembly of JP’101, thereby ensuring product durability without damaging the cell components. Furthermore, applying the thermocompression bonding process of JP’101 ( p.4) to an adhesive containing such particulates would result in deformation of the markers consistent with the thickness changes evaluated in JP’715 ( p.3), thereby facilitating morphology-based inspection of the bond quality. As to Claim 14: JP’101 discloses an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack ( p.1)); an EGA comprising a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and a gas diffusion layer (GDL) (discloses a “membrane electrode gas diffusion layer assembly (MEGA)” in which gas diffusion layers are bonded to both sides of the MEA ( p.2)); a cell frame (frame member 10) comprising a polymer resin (made of “hard resin” ( pp.1–2)); an adhesion portion (adhesive sheet 40) bonding the EGA (MEA 20) and the cell frame (frame member 10) to each other ( p.3); and wherein the adhesion portion does not comprise a metallic additive (adhesive sheet 40 is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” and no metallic additive is disclosed ( p.3)). Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021118101 A (JP’101) in view of JP 4277715 B2 (JP’715), as applied to Claim 1 above, US 2006/0141332 A1 (US’332). As to Claim 2: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (discloses an adhesive structure of a single cell of a fuel cell stack (p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 (p.3)) between an EGA (membrane electrode assembly 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10 (pp.1–2)) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (bonding the MEA 20 to the frame member 10 by heating the adhesive sheet 40 while being sandwiched between an upper and lower jig (p.4)); and wherein the adhesive is applied onto one surface of the cell frame and/or one surface of the EGA (the adhesive sheet 40 is placed on the frame member 10 and the MEA 20 is placed on the adhesive (p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) that the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates, (2) imaging the shape of the polymer particulates by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion to evaluate quality, and (3) that the polymer particulates have an average particle diameter of 10 to 20 μm . JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising providing an adhesive containing an “X-ray detection substance” (discrete markers or particulates) (pp.1–2), obtaining a detection image by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer (p.2), and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., proper vs. inappropriate presence) based on the shape and “degree of change in thickness” of the detection image (p.3). US’332 further teaches fuel cell stack components with specific dimensional requirements, such as electrolyte layers having a thickness of less than 45 µm ([0008]). US’332 also describes planar fuel cell assemblies comprising frames and fuel cell arrays arranged in layered configurations ([0025]–[0026]), indicating compact structures in which control of layer thickness and spacing is important. JP’101, JP’715, and US’332 are analogous arts because all references are directed to fuel cell structures and/or adhesive bonding in layered electrochemical assemblies, and address the common problem of maintaining structural integrity and dimensional control within bonded fuel cell components. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include polymer particulates in the adhesive sheet of JP’101 to serve as the radiographic markers taught by JP’715, and to size those particulates with an average diameter of 10 to 20 μm in view of the thin-layer dimensions taught in US’332. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive verification of seal quality in a fuel cell stack. Specifically, utilizing particulates that serve as both internal markers for radiographic inspection (as taught by JP’715) and as elements compatible with thin-layer structures (as taught by US’332) represents a predictable design choice. As to Claim 3: JP’101 discloses the adhesive comprises a film-type adhesive sheet or a hot-melt adhesive (explicitly discloses an adhesive sheet 40 which is a “so-called hot melt adhesive sheet containing a thermoplastic resin as an adhesive” (p.3)). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021118101 A (JP’101) in view of JP 4277715 B2 (JP’715) and US 2008/0311457 A1 (US’457). As to Claim 4: JP’101 discloses a method of inspecting an adhesion portion in a hydrogen fuel cell (discloses an adhesive structure and manufacturing of a single cell of a fuel cell stack (p.1)); providing an electricity-generating assembly (EGA)-cell frame assembly by applying an adhesive (adhesive sheet 40 (p.3)) between an EGA (membrane electrode assembly 20) and a cell frame (frame member 10 (pp.1–2)) and then subjecting the EGA and the cell frame to thermocompression (bonding the components by heating the adhesive sheet 40 while sandwiched between jigs (p.4)); and wherein the adhesive is mixed with polymer particulates (discloses inclusion of spacer elements such as beads within adhesive structures used for bonding and spacing (p.3)). However, JP’101 does not explicitly disclose (1) imaging a shape of the polymer particulates in an adhesion portion by passing X-rays through the adhesion portion to evaluate quality and (2) that the polymer particulates comprise polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polycarbonate (PC), or cycloolefin copolymer (COC). JP’715 teaches a method for nondestructively inspecting the adhesion state of a bonded structure comprising obtaining a detection image by passing X-rays through the adhesive layer containing detection markers (particulates) (pp.1–2) and evaluating the adhesion quality (e.g., proper vs. inappropriate presence) based on the shape and “degree of change” of the detection image (p.3). US’457 teaches fuel cell stack components utilizing high-performance polymer materials and composite structures suitable for fuel cell environments, including polymers selected for chemical resistance, thermal stability, and structural integrity ([0032]). US’457 further discloses that such polymer materials may include engineering plastics and composite materials with reinforcing fillers suitable for use in fuel cell assemblies ([0032]), indicating compatibility of polymer-based materials within fuel cell structures. JP’101, JP’715, and US’457 are analogous arts because they are all directed to the technical field of bonding and inspection of structural components, particularly within the context of hydrogen fuel cells. JP’101 and US’457 both address the material and structural requirements for fuel cell assemblies and bonding interfaces, while JP’715 provides the inspection methodology to verify that such bonds are uniform and correctly formed. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the radiographic inspection method of JP’715 to the polymer particulates present in the fuel cell assembly of JP’101, and to select the material for said particulates from common high-performance polymers such as PC or PMMA as suggested by the material compatibility teachings of US’457. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide a non-destructive way to verify the quality of critical internal seals between the EGA and the cell frame. Selecting a specific polymer such as PC or PMMA represents a predictable use of known engineering materials that provide mechanical stability and compatibility with the fuel cell environment while enabling radiographic detection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 10392424 B4 discloses a connection system for a fuel cell monitoring device and a fuel cell monitoring system with a fuel cell monitoring device for measuring electrical properties of fuel cells in one Fuel cell stack. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3242 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST . 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 Tong Guo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3066 . 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 /JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1723 /JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723