Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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) the 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US20200298187).
It should be noted that while US20200298187 has a common inventor with the instant application, the US20200298187 reference was published more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. Discloses a heterogeneous zeolite membrane that has two zeolite structures of CHA and DDR, each capable of selectively separating carbon dioxide from N2 and CH4 even under wet conditions (paragraph 0002). The heterogeneous zeolite membrane is prepared by forming a seed layer of CHA zeolite particles on a support, and performing hydrothermal synthesis on the CHA seed layer in the presence of a DDR precursor solution to produce a DDR@CHA heterogeneous zeolite membrane (paragraph 0011). Choi et al. also discloses the heterogeneous zeolite membrane can be prepared in the opposite order, that is, forming a seed layer of DDR zeolite particles on a support, and performing hydrothermal synthesis on the DDR seed layer in the presence of a CHA precursor solution to produce a CHA@DDR heterogeneous zeolite membrane (paragraph 0041). The first embodiment (DDR@CHA) is preferred because CHA seed particles are easier to synthesize (paragraph 0047—052).
Choi et al. discloses the gaps between the zeolite seed particles are filled through hydrothermal treatment (paragraph 0044). The hydrothermal treatment is done in a DDR precursor solution (paragraph 0044), so the gaps between the CHA zeolites are filled with DDR structure which would make a first layer including CHA and DDR structure. An embodiment that creates the membrane with this method uses SSZ-13 as the CHA zeolite seeds and a ZSM-58 precursor solution as the DDR part (paragraph 0079).
In this embodiment, when the secondary growth of the hydrothermal reaction is carried out for 6 days (DDR@CHA_6d), the SSZ-13 (CHA) seed layer and the DDR structure part co-exist in a lower part and upper part of the membrane (paragraph 0079). The SSZ-13 seed layer is effectively covered (paragraph 0079). Therefore, a first layer including CHA structure and DDR structure is present, and a second layer including a DDR structure exists on top of the first layer. When the secondary growth is done for 6 days (DDR@CHA_6d), the resulting total thickness of the CHA-DDR zeolite membrane is 4.3 micrometers (FIG. 2E) (paragraph 0079).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. discloses XRD characterization of the CHA@DDR_6d sample (Fig. 11E) (paragraph 0075). The CHA@DDR_6d is an embodiment that has DDR crystals deposited and 6 days of hydrothermal synthesis in a CHA precursor. The XRD pattern of the CHA@DDR membrane includes the 101 peak of the DDR seed layer (paragraph 0075). This means the surface of the membrane includes DDR type zeolite and the first layer would have DDR seeds with CHA filling the gap, so the CHA@DDR_6d embodiment satisfies claim 1. In this zeolite membrane, diamond-shaped all-silica DDR particles were synthesized and deposited on the alumina disc (paragraph 0075). The disclosure of the present invention uses diamond and pyramid shaped interchangeably (specification page 32, lines 22-24). As a result, it can be concluded that the diamond-shaped DDR particles are the same as the pyramid-shaped in the present invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, looking at XRD of DDR@CHA_6d, we also see a 101 peak. See FIG. 2F below.
PNG
media_image3.png
429
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. discloses the CHA precursor solution is composed of an organic-structure directing agent, SiO2, H2O, Na2O, and Al2O3 at a molar ratio of 1 to 100:100:1000 to 20000:1 to 50: 0 to 10, and the organic-structure-directing agent may include one or more of TMAdaOH, TMAdaBr, TMAdaF, TMAdaCl, TMAdaI, TEAOH, TEABr, TEAF, TEACl, TEAI, dipropylamine, and cyclohexylamine (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. discloses the DDR precursor solution is composed of SiO2, organic-structure-directing agent, Na2O, H2O, and Al2O3 at a molar ratio of 100:1 to 1000:0 to 500:10 to 100000: 0 to 10, and the organic-structure-directing agent may include one or more of methyltropinium iodide, methyltopinium bromide, methyltropinium fluoride, methyltropinium chloride, methyltropinium hydroxide, quinuclidinium, ethylenediamine, and adamantylamine (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. discloses Fig. 17F which shows the permeance vs the secondary growth time. The 6-day membrane which fulfills the size limitation of claim 1, and has a CO2 permeance of roughly 1*10-7 as seen below.
PNG
media_image4.png
454
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to have a carbon dioxide recovery of 10% to 100% and a purity of 50% to 100%, and a methane recovery of 50% to 100% and a purity of 30% to 100% when carbon dioxide and methane are fed with a molar ratio of 50:50 besides the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane already anticipated. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating carbon dioxide and methane with the claimed recoveries and purities.
Regarding claim 9, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to have a carbon dioxide recovery of 10% to 100% and a purity of 20% to 100%, and a nitrogen recovery of 30% to 100% and a purity of 30% to 100% when carbon dioxide and nitrogen are fed with a molar ratio of 15:85 besides the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane already anticipated. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating carbon dioxide and nitrogen with the claimed recoveries and purities.
Regarding claim 10, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to separate a mixture of gas and gas, gas and liquid, and liquid and liquid besides the CHA-DDR type zoelite membrane already anticipated. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating different mixture of states of matter. Additionally, Choi et al. discloses the separation of gas mixtures.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 above, and further in view of Isomura et al. (US20140331860).
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. discloses the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane of claim 1, but does not disclose the thickness of the individual layers in the membrane.
Isomura et al. discloses a ceramic separation membrane that includes a porous substrate, and a separation layer formed on the substrate, wherein the separation layer is a laminate having an outermost layer positioned on the most surface side, and a base layer positioned in a lower layer than the outermost layer and made of zeolite (paragraph 0013). The base layer of the ceramic separation membrane is made of chabazite (CHA) zeolite (paragraph 0014). The outermost layer is made of DDR type zeolite (paragraph 0016). The thickness of the outermost layer is preferably from 0.5 to 10 micrometers and is result-effective (paragraph 0044). When the thickness of the outermost layer is smaller than 0.5 micrometers, it is difficult to uniformly form a film of the outermost layer and the performance of the separation membrane deteriorates. When the thickness is greater than 10 micrometers, the pressure loss in the outermost layer is large (paragraph 0044).
The thickness of the base layer is preferably 1-20 micrometers (paragraph 0050), or double the thickness of the outermost layer (paragraph 0043). The thickness of the base layer is result effective. When the thickness of the base layer is smaller than 1 micrometer, it is difficult to uniformly form the base layer and the separation performance of the separation membrane deteriorates (paragraph 0050). When the thickness is greater than 20 micrometers, the pressure loss in the base layer is large and the water permeation speed of the membrane is slow (paragraph 0050).
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the two layers in Choi et al. with the teachings of Isomura et al. because of the high separation performance and fast water permeation (paragraph 0020). The high separation performance and water permeation of the membrane can be attributed to the optimized thickness of the base layer (paragraph 0050) and the outermost layer (paragraph 0044).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 above, and further in view of Carstensen et al. (CN107107030A).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. discloses the heterogeneous zeolite membrane mainly includes DDR zeolites, but does not give a specific weight ratio of CHA and DDR structure zeolites.
Carstensen et al. discloses adsorbent materials with high adsorption capacity and increased selectivity for gaseous pollutants such as CO2 (paragraph 0013). The adsorbent material comprises a core and at least one coating grown on the core (paragraph 0013). The adsorbent material comprises a core containing CHA zeolite and a coating that comprises DDR zeolite (paragraph 0015). The coating and core may be present in a coating:core weight ratio of approximately 1:2 (paragraph 0073). This correlates to 2 parts by weight of CHA structure based on 3 parts by weight of the total structure falling within the claimed range (67 wt% CHA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the amounts of CHA and DDR structure taught in Carstensen et al. in the homogeneous membrane in Choi et al. because kinetic selectivity and diffusivity of the adsorbent coating enable the rapid transport of CO2 to the nucleus while hindering the transport of CH4 allowing selective separation of CO2 from a mixture of CO2 and CH4 (paragraph 0102). The core has a higher adsorption capacity of CO2 compared to the coating (paragraph 0102). If the incorrect amount of DDR zeolite is used, then the selective separation of CO2 and CH4 will not be possible because CH4 will also diffuse through the coating. If the incorrect amount of CHA zeolite is used, then will not be enough capacity to adsorb CO2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights